In retrospect i think they should have given the Stardrive similar weapons like the Defiants Phaser cannons right from the beginning at the start of TNG.
Cryptics devs could have given the seperated Stardrive section some additional abilities, like mounting DHCs and a more tac heavy BOFF layout (similar like the Dyson destroyers have).
But of course it's just the Galaxy, don't put too much tought in it devs.
That's because Pulse Phaser Cannons of the Defiant's type hadn't been invented yet, and the Pulse Phasers of the Miranda class were woefully underpowered even compared to the short phaser array on the stardrive.
But on the other hand i think the whole idea of seperating the ship isn't very thought out.
Its better to have one strong efficient structure than two glued together (sounds disgusting, lol.)
Well the perspective is one ship that can be divided.
It's interesting, when you consider the stresses that the ship would incur operating at impulse cruising around at a third light speed, the structural integrity field is much more important to the ship staying in one piece than the duranium and tritanium. And the Duranium and tritanium is insanely tough.
Also consider that the nacelles are also designed to be blown off in an emergency.
They actually never say a speed faster then warp 8 in the movies themselves. Here's the quote from memory alpha.
"Warp 8 is the highest speed a Sovereign-class ship was known to have traveled on-screen. According to Star Trek: Starship Spotter, the maximum warp of the Sovereign-class ship was warp factor 9.7. However, Star Trek Evolutions gives the Sovereign a maximum warp of 9.985."
I don't think the Sovereign is faster then the Galaxy - but I do think she can maintain full speed longer.
I think she is just because of the hull configuration, the Intrepid, the Prometheus, even Arturis' fake Dauntless all show that the longer design seems to be faster.
From a Doylist perspective, John Eaves said he wanted to design the Porsche to Probert's Cadillac. There's no slow Porsche.
I can't see the ship that inherits the name Enterprise being in the same speed family as the Equinox. Every ship that's been called Enterprise that we've heard about such things was the fastest at the fleet when she was deployed and in the 1701's case was the fastest for 20 years. The ship that succeeded the Constitution class? The Transwarp project Excelsior.
I do wonder - how much impact do you think Playmates had over the Enterprise being replaced? They had the Trek license at the time - and the Enterprise E was a kick-TRIBBLE seller that year at Christmas if I remember right.
It would be heartbreaking to learn that the Enterprise D died for the same reason Duke and Optimus Prime did... to sell a new toy.
It's funny, I was going to buy that that Christmas. I didn't, the toy's saucer section was too thick and didn't sit right with me. I had the E-D though. Too easy to lose her nacelles.
A photon torpedo has an M/AM warhead. Its primary damage should not be "kinetic".
A Plasma torpedo in the old TOS literally was superheated gas, thrown at you in a giant blob.
In TNG and onwards, plasma torpedoes where like photons, but with a different warhead type. Probably a charge of combustable warpplasma or eps plasma. We all know how volatile that shiite can be.
Klinkers always stuck to photons and heavy yield disruptors: Bigger is better
That depends on your definition of kinetic. It certainly doesn't impact like a bullet, railgun, or mass driver if that's what you mean, where the damage is primarily from the fact that it moves really fast (relativistic speeds).
The makers seem to be applying kinetic to bombs, things that cause explosive shock. Which is technically ordinance. It really should just be explosive damage and be done with it.
The advantage of energy weapons over projectiles was that in their engagement range, energy weapons allow for a higher, directed (that means: not self immolating) attack cadence. Hammering the enemy ships to disrupt shielding. Hitting a shield with a particle beam weapon (and all Startrek energy weapons are particle weapons...) will naturally impart a shortlived deformation of the shield formation. Might even open up cracks so that energy can bleed through. That's why sparks start to fly: Energy is fed back into the system and there is only so much to be done in compensating these random bleed throughs.
We saw that a sustained, high power phaser shot from the enterprise in yesterdays enterprise basically shattered the shield of the leading K'vort. And the ship.
However energy weapons lack range. While star trek never truly depicted proper use of standoff weapons like projectiles, we can look at SFB/SFC for examples here.
In SFC, a photon torpedo in its standard setting would always do its full damage, assuming a hit was scored.
That in and of itself is incorrect though.
Beyond 750k KM a photon torpedo has to use the matter and antimatter in its warhead as fuel thus weakening the detonation if it connects.
An issue I think is greater than the range of the weapon is that beyond say a million kilometers or so, you're dealing with the fact that a phaser is limited by the speed of light and most ships can just jump to warp to dodge. At point blank range it's almost impossible to react out past a few light seconds it becomes more complex. The maximum effective tactical range of a phaser is thus rated at 300,000 kilometers or one light second.
That same reasoning applies somewhat to torpedoes, but torpedoes can follow the target as long as they don't warp jump.
I think that accounts for why Star Trek battles always occurred at knife fight range.
Look at Mass Effect or Star Wars. Star Trek ships are insanely maneuverable by comparison.
It reminds a bit of the US Military's erroneous belief that long range guided missiles would kill dog-fighting.
The weapon outranged energy weapons considerably. Standard engagements began far outside phaser range and as such ,it was customary for Federation captains to (depending on skill level of the tactical officer) set the torpedoes for proximity charge or leave em at standard and then try to play range and bombard the incoming vessel.
(of course this was possible only due to the better implementation of combat attrition: shields recharge on a set number per second depending on the ship hull. The player basically only used excess energy available to his ship to create a layer of buffer shield power over the "natural" shield layers. Incoming damage would deduct points from the buffer first.)
The torpedo there has a role: its a standoff weapon that will allow you to damage the enemy before he comes into main engagement range.
Mine tactics and harassment on the way to the in close engagement, I hear you.
What i want to say is this:
STO's differentiation of "does damage to hull" and "does damage to shields" is silly. Your hull will crumble under a particle beam and under a a/am explosion in either case. Its just that the weapons are fundamentally made for different engagement scenarios.
that's in story reasoning they used to put them in those colors. worf was security before switching to gold (actaully he bounced around he never had an offical position untill tashas death as he did engineering, command, tactical, annd security offiliated tasks) and becoming head of security. and there where 3 chief engineers before gordie was made engineer in season 2 before that he was helm and navigation
The thing is that Security in TOS was a position that was a red shirt. Thus under TNG he would've started in Gold.
Tasha by contrast if Worf wasn't Security chief (and it's perfectly understandable to think he was at times) she was the Tactical officer and Security chief hybrid. And she always wore gold.
And he and Geordi swapped Conn and then Worf was at Security, it was weird. Remember when the D had like three Chief Engineers?
I agree. STO really didn't help but confuse lots of people that aren't really that much into the "first layer" of fluff of Star Trek. The whole "Tactical" profession in STO makes no sense and is a obvious trinity based gameplay decision.
Captains should have been put into command from the very beginning, just being able to choose a "background" of Operations, Engineering, Science or Medical but not toying with the department colours like they did. It has bugged me from the very beginning that Security wore red once again. I reasoned it with that they just wanted to bring the redshirt joke back, but other than that it really irks me.
Yeah it was Command Track, Engineering, Operations, Science, and Medical.
The interesting thing about TNG is that ALL dedicated Conn officers wore command red. That makes some sense as navigation and piloting are critical for the guy in the chair, but it's still more of a starship operations thing.
That's not to say it was terribly strict, as other divisions would still where their color, but to be a Commander you had to be command track qualified (Troi and Crusher).
Tactical is a part of Command though. The commanding officer has to be the boss tactician on his ship.
That said STO's Command specialization IS correct for the BOFFs. It should be default for Captains though.
"Tactical" isn't a "thing" in canon, either. Yes, there are tactical officers, but that's shown as a senior position. There aren't "tactical officers" en mass running around the ships. Fighting operations have always been performed by Security, even highly sensitive operations like DS9s "To death" showe were performed by Security personnel and specialists, not "tactical" people, not "marines" or anything people come up with.
There is Starfleet Tactical, though. But it's a branch of Starfleet, not a department, and as such you have all departments be able to work for "Tactical". A ship's tactical officer though makes sense to belong to command and wear red - this was always the case with the exception of Worf and Tuvok and I think their position of head of security determined their colours.
Tactical is odd in Star Trek. It's been hybridized with the security chief when that role has been present. Reed was the Armory officer which was a Tactical officer in all but name (to the point that he even named the precursor to red alert tactical alert) but he had ALL the security duties to the point he was ticked when the MACOs came aboard and took over that role. TOS had neither with Sulu being the most dedicated gunner on the ship when they weren't playing Silent Service. In the films Chekov was the Tactical Officer while Security wasn't really mentioned, though in VI Uhura showed up with the security team.
Worf went to command red again when he became the Strategic Operations Officer which was the coordinator for ALL tactical operations in the Bajor sector at least, certainly a tactical and command position.
If I had to hazard a guess it seems they tried to set up the BOFFs so there was one for each bridge station. (and then promptly forgot Conn). Security station, tactical station, Ops manager, engineering, Science, and then mandatory medical.
Legitimately there should be a small tactical department on a ship just so you can always have a tactical officer on duty and not force one officer to be responsible for tactical operations and ship's security. You don't want to divide the attention of the guy firing weapons to deal with a boarding party.
The tactical department should be responsible for maintaining and fine tuning the ship's weapons in addition to threat force analysis.
But it wouldn't be a full division. I'd place it under the command track red as well myself.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Am I seeing things or is there a new model of Sovereign class in the background of Arc lately?
One with the Nemesis neck?
Yeah, i think that ship looks different than that ship we have in game, but to be honest i couldn't care less. (no offense, just my personal opinion)
I was never a fan of that design and that ship in particular, so whatever.:o
If they would give it some forward facing pylons in addition (not wider or more narrow, simply the same as the sov. just forward facing) and remake the majestic and noble models (for some parts to be used) then it could be worth a look imo.
While writing this, am i the only one wondering why they made all Sovereign variants acessible to T5-U (or better said endgame) while the exploration Cruisers variants (Celesial, Envoy) are not?
Don't get me wrong, all of those variants (majestic, noble, envoy, celestial) look horrible. But there are some parts that COULD be useful imo.
I just don't like things to be incomplete, if you know what i mean.
That's because Pulse Phaser Cannons of the Defiant's type hadn't been invented yet, and the Pulse Phasers of the Miranda class were woefully underpowered even compared to the short phaser array on the stardrive.
I was talking from a production point of view, not in-universe. Sorry i haven't made that more clear.
What Miranda pulse phasers are you talking about?
(ST:3 "pulse" phasers wheren't miranda exclusive if you're talking about those)
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
yeah season 1 TNG was odd with the command structure there was 3 different chief engineers. the guy argus, then the woman, and one that was only in the first episode
gordie was the Conn officer and navigation. worfs official roll until season 2 when he took over officially as tactical and security was relief officer. he filled in for all bridge postings main reason he still wore read till season 2 he was still the relief officer (that and they had not created the costume yet and where still thinking of getting a new actor to replace tasha)
instead of hiring on new actors they just moved worf and gordie around and put them in costumes they thought looked better on them so it was a win win
also any one else remember the holographic displays the D was using back in season one that went a way by season 2?
yeah season 1 TNG was odd with the command structure there was 3 different chief engineers. the guy argus, then the woman, and one that was only in the first episode
Don't forget Lieutenant Commander Leland T. Lynch!
Yeah i always found that technology to be very cool.
Sadly they abandoned it similar like Holo-communicator from "For the Uniform" (DS9: 5x13). Both where interesting and futuristic concepts imo.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
just the explanation alone without the show's visuals to draw reference from would probably leave anyone confused. but its the manual that is explaining the show, the why of the moving glow effect, and the extrapolation of what it means. you also have to acknowledge what it says about the emitter segments, that they are all self contained phaser banks, they all have an EPS feed running to them, and they all have their own capacitor. the moving glow effect is the transfer of power each emitter segment holds to the fireing point, signifying that the more emitters in an array there are, the more powerful the arrays best shot can be. its all so air tight im baffled that this is somehow still being 'debated'.
i think it is because of the way it was explained.
the way you present it leave too much the impression that in the end it is a fan biased opinion.
even i was thinking that in the beguining.
this is usually how you proceed to demonstrate this "theory", ready? here we go:
longer arry = more powerfull array, because: "description from the tech manual", and proof: visual fx of the energy feed in the show.
while i do bielieve now that the best way to convinced them is to do it backward, in short:
what the purpose of the energy feed visual? explanation : " tech manual description", conclusion: the longer the array, the more powerfull a shot could be.
when you try to find the explanation to the energy feed ( the most constant things in star trek, i am dare to said... well exept the holodeck malfunction maybe;) ), only there you can see that all others explanations given so far don't fit.
indeed you don't light up an emiter in the array to then transfet it energy on an other emiter at the opposite side of the array to hit a target, it just daesn't make sense... at all.
and here the tech manual description come to give substance to the theory, to connect the dots.
all this show that even if it is not explicitly said in the tech manual, it is just the logical conclusion.
when people have to think this for themselves and not be given the conclusion all done, then they will realise that this is the best explanation so far.
unless you are dealing with someone that can not stand that the galaxy might be more powerfull than a sovereign, but we all known that these people will never be convinced even if the creator of the show told them so.
well until someone found a better explanation, but i really doubt it now.
Yeah, i think that ship looks different than that ship we have in game, but to be honest i couldn't care less. (no offense, just my personal opinion)
I was never a fan of that design and that ship in particular, so whatever.:o
If they would give it some forward facing pylons in addition (not wider or more narrow, simply the same as the sov. just forward facing) and remake the majestic and noble models (for some parts to be used) then it could be worth a look imo.
Forward swept like the Regent. Yeah no. That was the original design in fact. They scrapped it when one of the producers pointed out to John Eaves that with the pylons in a forward swept configuration the ship looks like a turkey in the pan when viewed from above so he switched it to the swept back. The swept back also then lined up with the Constitution style.
I think they made the right call. If you didn't care that much you wouldn't have bother to share though.
While writing this, am i the only one wondering why they made all Sovereign variants acessible to T5-U (or better said endgame) while the exploration Cruisers variants (Celesial, Envoy) are not?
Don't get me wrong, all of those variants (majestic, noble, envoy, celestial) look horrible. But there are some parts that COULD be useful imo.
I just don't like things to be incomplete, if you know what i mean.
I happen to like parts of the Noble myself. I use the saucer, pylons and nacelles. I want the internacelle pod from the pre-beta period, but the Devs seem to have thrown that away.
I don't get why they cast aside the other variants myself to be honest.
I was talking from a production point of view, not in-universe. Sorry i haven't made that more clear.
What Miranda pulse phasers are you talking about?
(ST:3 "pulse" phasers wheren't miranda exclusive if you're talking about those)
No worries, it's a bit questionable in truth, depending on where you look, the phasers on the roll bar of the Miranda were described as pulse phaser. (Star Trek 2) But yeah the firing was the same as the Constitution's so they were likely the same type of bank, though the Miranda's rollbar phasers didn't have the same kind of placement.
yeah season 1 TNG was odd with the command structure there was 3 different chief engineers. the guy argus, then the woman, and one that was only in the first episode
gordie was the Conn officer and navigation. worfs official roll until season 2 when he took over officially as tactical and security was relief officer. he filled in for all bridge postings main reason he still wore read till season 2 he was still the relief officer (that and they had not created the costume yet and where still thinking of getting a new actor to replace tasha)
instead of hiring on new actors they just moved worf and gordie around and put them in costumes they thought looked better on them so it was a win win
Frankly it was a bit silly for Worf and Geordi to not have designated rolls to begin with.
also any one else remember the holographic displays the D was using back in season one that went a way by season 2?
Those were immensely cool...probably immensely expensive and a little difficult to act with.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Forward swept like the Regent. Yeah no. That was the original design in fact. They scrapped it when one of the producers pointed out to John Eaves that with the pylons in a forward swept configuration the ship looks like a turkey in the pan when viewed from above so he switched it to the swept back. The swept back also then lined up with the Constitution style.
Yeah, one should think that Starship design would have evolved a bit since the Constitution, lol.
Like a turkey in a pan... i heard that story too. (wow if you think about it for a moment how they come to their decisions.... unbeliveable)
Well if you're trying hard enough you can find a stupid comparison for every Starship design.
For STO, i'd favor both options, a backwards swept one (for those who can't get that turkey out of their heads) and a forward facing one for those who don't have that problem, lol.
Why not have both?!?
The amount of work for Cryptics devs would be minimal, since they would just have to copy and mirror the existing (backward swept) one.
I think they made the right call. If you didn't care that much you wouldn't have bother to share though.
Not really, but i like to have a own opinion about certain stuff.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
EPS submaster flow regulator, the principal mechanism for controlling phaser power levels (power from the EPS grid is transferred and regulated BEFORE going in the plasma distribution manifold(PDM) this is where phaser power is determined. From the EPS grid!) This is the damning evidence. The mechanism for controling how powerful a phaser blast emits is BEFORE the power travels to the emitters.
exactly! you're getting it! and those emitters the EPS submaster flow regulator selects to supply power to then sequentially discharge it toward the fireing point, seen visibly in the show! i'm glad we finally settled this once and for all :^)
Now the power can flow to any of the 200 supply conduits to the emitter which is in optimal firing position and out via the emitter crystal. (This flow can explain the moving glowing effect on the phaser arrays)
the flow of plasma in the EPS conduits meters below the hull explain the glow effect? :rolleyes: the visual is energy in the prefire chambers discharging sequentially toward the firing point. and we know every single emitter between the beginning of the glow effect and the firing point had power routed to it, and then passes it on, otherwise there would be no explanation for the glow to happen anywere but the firing point. your whole thing appears to be no explanation is better then my explanation, that reeks of fanboyism you accuse me of.
Nothing about the emitters acting as capacitors. Nothing about a cumulative effect. (The whole basis of your argument)
when i say capacitor, for all intents and purposes, thats the prefire chamber it mentions, that gets power from the EPS submaster flow regulator, and then passes it down the array, as seen viably in the show.
about the cumulative effect, how spoon fed do you need to be, SERIOUSLY. this manual was written to be 'in universe', as if this cumulative point was so OBVIOUS it didn't even need to be mentioned to any laymen federation citizen reading it.
In fact it speaks more about how phaser emitters work in technical terms.
All this time you've been reading the tech manual and simply misinterpreting everything. Every other piece of canon evidence you've written off because it contradicts your misinterpretation this whole time.
Might be time to rewatch the series.
you actually said this with a strait face after the mental gymnastics you pulled trying to debunk the obvious, wile offering no coherent alternate explanation.
the superior interpretation of the manual is found here, i need not rewrite it.
Ive been a part of this kind of debat since like 07 or earlier, back then i was trying to make arguments similar to edalgo, but they were totally illogical, and required dismissing several factors that cant be dismissed, and i was in a little more then slight denial that the galaxy could ever rate top 5 in firepower, let alone have the most. I was one of the bigger sovereign fanboys back then, but wile playing and modding that old star trek legacy game, i became interested in accurately portraying each ship's combat potential accurately.
Requiring an understanding of all the factors involved so i could properly stat the ships in game, this lead to great debates about how arrays worked, and many other things. I didn't care much for the galaxy back then, only saw its poor performance in the show, and didn't scrutinize it much. though when i started to, and read the tech manual, it really became apparent how scalable the trek tech was, how often things were upgraded, leaving no class the most advanced for more then a year or so, and were basically bigger was always better. It detailed how modular the ship was, indicating that what you saw in tng wasn't any sort of 'normal' configuration for the galaxy, just 1 possible extreme way to outfit one.
This created a gradual admiration for the galaxy class, and i came to like its look, more so then the over styled look of the sovereign. The galaxy may be my favorite ship now, but its not by any extreme margin. And i never tried to gather facts based on proving that my favorite was best, i gathered facts and my mind was changed, this is the opposite of fanboyism.
Your poor grasp of forum quoting makes your post to time consuming to respond to point to point, and most of your 'points' are so backwards and flawed, full of logical fallacies and arguments of authority that they don't dignify a response. I'll just try to explain it all again.
The TNG TM clearly states the significance of the individual emitter segments, and how they link together. There is no need to further elaborate, because logic dictates that, if the emitters can link together to mass their discharged energy into a single beam, the more emitters you have, the stronger the beam. Longer arrays have more emitters. Therefore, logic dictates that a longer array can link more emitters into a single beam discharge, allowing for a greater discharge of energy.
Here is the elaboration that is not necessary.The TM states each emitter segment has a plasma distribution manifold, which branches into a supply conduits leading into the segment and ending in the prefire chamber. This is fed by an EPS submaster flow regulator, the principal mechanism controlling phaser power levels for firing, by controling which segments get plasma, and how much. then comes the visual effect in the show, a glow moving across the TOP of the array, the accumulation of energy from the emitter segments, gathered at the optimal discharge point before firing. How can their be a glow at all, if every emitter has its own energy tap, and there is no cumulative effect from multiple emitters in an array? there wouldn't be arrays at all, let alone a glow passing over it.
Try explaining this to me, a target aft of a GCS has at least 4 arrays pointed at it at all times. If its above the pylons, and your specifically behind the venture, you have 6 arrays pointed at you thanks to those nacelle arrays it has. Below the nacelle pylon, you also have 4 arrays pointed at you, 5 if you're low enough, from the belly array.
Does that mean a GCS has 4,5,6 times as much aft firepower then it does forward firepower?
Well, no, a GCS has a lot more total emitters pointing forward then it does any other direction. but, why then doesn't the ship discharge a shot from every single emitter that has line of sight with a target, since an emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing? Where is the phaser wall that should be fired at a target from the main arrays, and seriously, what is up with that moving glow effect only leading to a single shot being fired, when emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing?
because an emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, why are there arrays? mid to late 24th century phaser emitter banks have emitter crystals that allow them to shoot in any direction they have line of sight with, there is no longer a mechanical turret that has to be lined up before a shot can fire. since emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, an array configuration has literally 0 advantage over just carefully placed single emitter banks. there has to be over 400 total phaser emitters in a dense linear arrangement on a GCS, called arrays, and since emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, 99% of them are redundant. what a hilarious resource boondoggle of biblical proportion the phaser array is, because again, emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing. Not even split up arrays on intrepids and sovereigns of ANY size could be justifiable in any way, even one of those tiny 10, 15, 20 emitter arrays covering aft fireing arcs have 10, 15 or 20 times the emitters then are necessary.
This is the logical conclusion of thinking emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing. i would hardly call this fitting perfectly with whats in the show, where ships DO have phaser arrays, and DO have a moving glow effect before fireing shots.
there is actually quite a bit more to arrays theory then just # of emitters= firepower, i briefly mentioned it already
2. other possible factors could be the speed at which a glow moves on the array, that could limit how much power any emitter is able to contribute to the shot.
3. a glow might look very small, or look very large like it stretcher across many emitters as it moves along the array, this may also gauge how much power each emitter is contributing.
But i concluded going into all that was above edalgo reading level, and would probably just add more confusion then clarity. There's a whole huge SDE theory i could post, thought up all the way back in like 09 on the star trek legacy moding forum that is basically universally accepted as most likely the exact science of arrays among my peers. But we cant even accept that emitters in an array have a cumulative effect around here, so i have not gone any further then that.
the only time the GCS fired form more then one array was when the enterpise was attacking the fake ship. fired form the side pylon arrays, both saucer arrays and the belly array and fired a full spread of torpedos.
i think that was the only time the enterpise ever fully unleashed hell on some one. it doed not even do that tot he borg. now geordi was in command at the time (season 1) and not picard so it probably had something to do with it
the only time the GCS fired form more then one array was when the enterpise was attacking the fake ship. fired form the side pylon arrays, both saucer arrays and the belly array and fired a full spread of torpedos.
i think that was the only time the enterpise ever fully unleashed hell on some one. it doed not even do that tot he borg. now geordi was in command at the time (season 1) and not picard so it probably had something to do with it
Nope, they unleashed hell against the Borg cube in The Best of Both Worlds. Rewatch the episode. They start by firing everything they have against it.
they only fired form the top saucer array and the pylon arrays with torpedos. did not use the belly array or the bottom saucer array but this si just form memory so i very well could be wrong and they could of just reused the footage
edit:
i seem to be wrong it's a complete reuse of the footage just with the added tractor effect
they only fired form the top saucer array and the pylon arrays with torpedos. did not use the belly array or the bottom saucer array but this si just form memory so i very well could be wrong and they could of just reused the footage
edit:
i seem to be wrong it's a complete reuse of the footage just with the added tractor effect
only something the size of the borg cube would be large enough for those more aft arrays to have line of sight with a target in front of the ship. and that was another fx error, those should have fired from the bottom of the pylons, not the front of them.
also it should be noted that they were trying to hit the cube with an many frequencies as possible, in an attempt to deal any damage at all, thats the main reason they fired every array they could line up against it. though strangely, not the ventral main array. well, thats early 90s effects for ya.
But i concluded going into all that was above edalgo reading level, and would probably just add more confusion then clarity. There's a whole huge SDE theory i could post, thought up all the way back in like 09 on the star trek legacy moding forum that is basically universally accepted as most likely the exact science of arrays among my peers. But we cant even accept that emitters in an array have a cumulative effect around here, so i have not gone any further then that.
Or, maybe, just maybe, he's just right and you're simply advocating ignorance here?
To answer your question of why there are arrays in the first place if number of emitters doesn't matter, there are two easy answers:
In universe, because it gives greater fire arcs and redundancy. That reason alone is sufficient to explain the existence of arrays, and further explains why later ships continued to have arrays, but inexplicably broke them up when there was no reason to do so. Your belief requires that Star Fleet built an explorer and gave it the best firepower they had, and then when they had an opportunity to make even stronger arrays on their more militaristic ships, they inexplicably made design decisions that lead to much weaker weapons.
In the real world, they exist because they look cool, full stop. Any "engineering principles" that were used to justify it were simply post-hoc rationalizations. The tech manuals etc were simply created to provide a "refrigerator logic" level of explanation, they don't even hang together with themselves. It was certainly never the intent to create something resembling a set of actual "rules" you could use to extrapolate how the ship "really" works, because the writers and showrunners were never really interested in that. If one day the ship needed to work a certain way for a plot point, then so it would be, even if it didn't make sense in the larger context of the continuity of the show. In other words, in attempting to base your rationale on "knowing" the canon, you've built your argument on a foundation of shifting sand.
Now, here's the reason it doesn't work the way you say:
With any transfer of energy, there are only three possibilities (well, really, only one, but I want to demonstrate that even if you were "right", you'd still be wrong):
First, the transfer is slightly inefficient, and some of the energy transferred is lost as heat. In the real world, this is how it always works. Given that they talk about power couplings burning out in the show, it seems likely that this is still how it works in the Star Trek universe. Given that, it is literally impossible to get more power by transferring from one emitter to the next than you would get if you just put all that power through the firing emitter directly. Whatever the reason for making long strips of emitters is, it cannot simply be making them more powerful, because it would have the exact opposite effect.
Second possibility, to pre-empt the tired "but it's Star Trek, so physics doesn't apply" - let's assume the transfer is 100% efficient (which, again, is actually impossible AND doesn't match the show). Guess what - number of emitters STILL doesn't matter, because with 100% efficiency you haven't gained any power relative to a single power transfer - you've simply avoided losing any.
Thus, in order to make sense at all, you have to believe that somehow transferring power from one emitter to the next magically adds energy. Literally, it would have to be magic, because no other explanation would do. Even if you decided to run with it - this creates all sorts of other crazy problems that would instantly break the Star Trek universe - for example, if transferring energy from one emitter to another somehow creates more energy, why are there warp cores at all? Why not just power everything by just endlessly looping power between your magical emitters and bleeding off the excess power? Taken to the extreme, these emitters are a source of infinite energy, evidently, which means they should also have infinite mass, which is... you know... bad.
Now, you may try to assert that spreading across the emitters makes the load easier to bear, and thus allows for larger blasts, but that's on face nonsense. The fact of the matter is that ultimately it's always going to come down to the power throughput that last emitter can handle - it doesn't matter if the energy came from multiple sources, or one source - in the end, it's all going through one final transfer, and if that coupling can't carry the power, it will fail. If that coupling CAN carry the power, that would negate the need to spread the power out in the first place, because if you can build one power junction that can carry that energy, you can build multiple (indeed, you would have to, in order to make it so every emitter on the array could function). Thus, you could just shunt the power directly - again, whatever the reason is for the arrays, it can't be this.
A slightly more clever argument might be to think of every emitter as a capacitor which holds power and then releases it down the line when fired. That even makes some sense, as far as it goes. The problem there is that it doesn't actually prove that the array is more powerful based on the number of emitters, it really only relates it to capacitors. Since the capacitors don't have to be tied to an emitter, it's easy to see how a shorter array with a larger internal store of capacitors (or even simply more effective capacitors) could be more powerful. Moreover, the given rate of fire of the phasers means the capacitor theory has problems - if the warp core can refill the capacitors fast enough to fire off the rapid shots we see on the show, then for all practical purposes it is providing the power instantly, with obviates the need for the capacitors in the first place. Thus, even in this best case scenario, your argument STILL doesn't hold water - the Galaxy arrays are not more powerful because of length, they are more powerful because of the capacity of the attached capacitors, and those capacitors don't necessarily have to be associated with arrays, nor do they seem to be necessary (or practical) given the rates of fire we see on the show.
The problem with the longer array theory even besides the physics are incorrect which most people don't know or understand is that it doesn't hold true when tested back against the show.
Let me try a different approach...
The Tech Manual is supposed to describe how things we see on the show work. "In Universe"
So they come up with this theory after reading about arrays that the longer the better or more powerful. (Which is actually just misinterpreting the tech manual and then trying to make an explanation to back up that misinterpretation. But now they base most other deductions off of this misinterpretation. )
They look at scenes of phasers firing and deduce they must be correct but the problem is those shots never confirm nor deny any of that theory.
But then when we come to in show situations, designs and descriptions that contradict the theory they write those dozen or so instances off as bad writing or technobabble nonsense instead of trying see if the theory holds water.
The bigger problem with that is if their theory is based upon the tech manual and the tech manual is based upon all the shows and movies. Well then their theory should work for all those specific situations on the shows, Especially when the show is directly talking about phaser output. But it doesn't.
The theory doesn't hold water more than just a few times.
Array length means nothing except a wider firing arc. Its all about the power transfer and output.
Yeah, one should think that Starship design would have evolved a bit since the Constitution, lol.
Humans always pay tribute to things in the past.
There's nothing wrong with the swept back pylons from a structural point of view though.
Like a turkey in a pan... i heard that story too. (wow if you think about it for a moment how they come to their decisions.... unbeliveable)
Well if you're trying hard enough you can find a stupid comparison for every Starship design.
I originally read it in the behind the scenes sketchbook.
So'na Battlecruisers are boomerangs. I got into an argument in chat with people saying that ALL Federation starships look like toilet seats (even the Defiant).
For STO, i'd favor both options, a backwards swept one (for those who can't get that turkey out of their heads) and a forward facing one for those who don't have that problem, lol.
Why not have both?!?
The amount of work for Cryptics devs would be minimal, since they would just have to copy and mirror the existing (backward swept) one.
This is something I can wholeheartedly agree with.
I think in this regard, I'm hoping the Command Battlecruisers with the multiple parts will be the norm going forward...though I don't think there's anything that's going to save those Pilot ships.
Not really, but i like to have a own opinion about certain stuff.
That's totally fair, and I do tend to get agitated about such things. I know this is a Galaxy thread but there's no need to bash the Sovereign.
if the sov is getting a new model and a T6 good. the current model is very lacking.
Definitely. I'm hopeful.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Or, maybe, just maybe, he's just right and you're simply advocating ignorance here?
I, the only one coherently connecting the dots, is doing the opposite of advocating ignorance, I assure you. Apparently, there is yet to be a person that even understands, or even read, my actual position. Now who's ignorant.
To answer your question of why there are arrays in the first place if number of emitters doesn't matter, there are two easy answers:
In universe, because it gives greater fire arcs and redundancy. That reason alone is sufficient to explain the existence of arrays, and further explains why later ships continued to have arrays, but inexplicably broke them up when there was no reason to do so. Your belief requires that Star Fleet built an explorer and gave it the best firepower they had, and then when they had an opportunity to make even stronger arrays on their more militaristic ships, they inexplicably made design decisions that lead to much weaker weapons.
No. Array emitter segments have a fire arc of everything they have line of sight with, you don't need them spiraled across the ship to line up a shot if thats all an array is supposed to be good for. If emitters in an array didn't have some cumulative firepower effect, they could get away with mounting about 20 emitters on the whole ship in place of 400+ in array form. Don't even try to justify there being 20 times as many banks then would be necessary. Wile at the same time offering no explanation for why only 1 shot is fired by an array at a time, and why their is a moving glow effect to the firing point that you also have no explanation for.
Whats this more militaristic ship? the sovereign? They aren't in the same weight class, 1 doesn't replace the other, and the galaxy was not built during anything that could be mistaken for a peace time, which is surrey what your implying. And weather a GCS is a dedicated explorer, or dedicated battleship, or anything in between depends entirely on how the basic space frame is later outfitted.
In the real world, they exist because they look cool, full stop. Any "engineering principles" that were used to justify it were simply post-hoc rationalizations. The tech manuals etc were simply created to provide a "refrigerator logic" level of explanation, they don't even hang together with themselves. It was certainly never the intent to create something resembling a set of actual "rules" you could use to extrapolate how the ship "really" works, because the writers and showrunners were never really interested in that. If one day the ship needed to work a certain way for a plot point, then so it would be, even if it didn't make sense in the larger context of the continuity of the show. In other words, in attempting to base your rationale on "knowing" the canon, you've built your argument on a foundation of shifting sand.
Give them a bit more credit, they actually bent over backwards to keep the tech consistent, but its a popular meme that it was all over the place, it really wasn't as far as tech was concerned. Not to mention the phaser effects were particularly consistent, even with the late 80s to the 90s pre cgi vfx they had to work with. The TNG tech manual is the writers bible turned into a fun in universe reference. Its not some TRIBBLE together after the fact bit of technobabble, the guy credited for writing the manual also was a part of making the show, the manual is the second hardest canon in all of trek, next to the shows and movies.
Now, here's the reason it doesn't work the way you say:
With any transfer of energy, there are only three possibilities (well, really, only one, but I want to demonstrate that even if you were "right", you'd still be wrong):
First, the transfer is slightly inefficient, and some of the energy transferred is lost as heat. In the real world, this is how it always works. Given that they talk about power couplings burning out in the show, it seems likely that this is still how it works in the Star Trek universe.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
Given that, it is literally impossible to get more power by transferring from one emitter to the next than you would get if you just put all that power through the firing emitter directly. Whatever the reason for making long strips of emitters is, it cannot simply be making them more powerful, because it would have the exact opposite effect.
so 1+1 literally isn't 2, gocha. Oh... wait, you actually think im saying 1+0=>1, you literally have no understanding of my bulletproof explanation. As usual, i have to defend my position from people thinking i have some entirely different position. SO tired of this. It really does seem pointless to respond to anyone skeptical, no mater how simple i make it, they cant or wont understand it.
Second possibility, to pre-empt the tired "but it's Star Trek, so physics doesn't apply" - let's assume the transfer is 100% efficient (which, again, is actually impossible AND doesn't match the show). Guess what - number of emitters STILL doesn't matter, because with 100% efficiency you haven't gained any power relative to a single power transfer - you've simply avoided losing any.
Thus, in order to make sense at all, you have to believe that somehow transferring power from one emitter to the next magically adds energy. Literally, it would have to be magic, because no other explanation would do. Even if you decided to run with it - this creates all sorts of other crazy problems that would instantly break the Star Trek universe - for example, if transferring energy from one emitter to another somehow creates more energy, why are there warp cores at all? Why not just power everything by just endlessly looping power between your magical emitters and bleeding off the excess power? Taken to the extreme, these emitters are a source of infinite energy, evidently, which means they should also have infinite mass, which is... you know... bad.
Ignorance of basic tech trek can make you assume all kinds of things. Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the part were i said each segment contributes power to the whole, wile the glow passes over them. 1 segment isn't putting its power into an empty, adjacent segment next to them, that would be POINTLESS, and yes, no magic additional energy would be created in that process. Every single segment has an EPS tap running to it, so during the moving glow effect all those powered emitters act like a 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc.
oh and nothing breaks the star trek universe as bad as transporters that can site to site from earth to kronos, thats iconion gateway tier, not to mention a blood transfusion that can CURE DEATH. just saying.
Now, you may try to assert that spreading across the emitters makes the load easier to bear, and thus allows for larger blasts, but that's on face nonsense. The fact of the matter is that ultimately it's always going to come down to the power throughput that last emitter can handle - it doesn't matter if the energy came from multiple sources, or one source - in the end, it's all going through one final transfer, and if that coupling can't carry the power, it will fail.
Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor.
If that coupling CAN carry the power, that would negate the need to spread the power out in the first place, because if you can build one power junction that can carry that energy, you can build multiple (indeed, you would have to, in order to make it so every emitter on the array could function). Thus, you could just shunt the power directly - again, whatever the reason is for the arrays, it can't be this.
Oh no it wouldn't, thats the genius of an array configuration over a huge bank, the size of say the entire array, that would be as powerful as the entire array. the array can dump its full power shot in any direction, a bank wouldn't have a fraction of the fireing arc, thats part of what makes arrays so great. Also the packaging of an array is totally scalable at any array length, the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks, there isn't a chance the entire saucer section would be flooded by plasma if that huge conduit were to breach, and there isn't any real point of failure in the whole system. even if part of the array were to take a direct hit, all the other emitter segments could function around it, the advantages are endless.
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
That even makes some sense, as far as it goes. The problem there is that it doesn't actually prove that the array is more powerful based on the number of emitters, it really only relates it to capacitors. Since the capacitors don't have to be tied to an emitter, it's easy to see how a shorter array with a larger internal store of capacitors (or even simply more effective capacitors) could be more powerful. Moreover, the given rate of fire of the phasers means the capacitor theory has problems - if the warp core can refill the capacitors fast enough to fire off the rapid shots we see on the show, then for all practical purposes it is providing the power instantly, with obviates the need for the capacitors in the first place. Thus, even in this best case scenario, your argument STILL doesn't hold water - the Galaxy arrays are not more powerful because of length, they are more powerful because of the capacity of the attached capacitors, and those capacitors don't necessarily have to be associated with arrays, nor do they seem to be necessary (or practical) given the rates of fire we see on the show.
They don't have capacitors per say, but ALL segments have a direct feed leading off from large eps conduits, and they can all discharge, in the mkX emitter's case 5.1 MW, toward a target or down its neighbor to a designated cumulative discharge point. If there was an 'off site' large capacitor somewhere, you wouldn't need the array, you wouldn't have the moving glow effect, you would just have 1 emitter discharging it all, which is exactly what the tos and tmp era phaser bank ball turrets did. Arrays are a better way, like i explained.
The problem with the longer array theory even besides the physics are incorrect which most people don't know or understand is that it doesn't hold true when tested back against the show.
Let me try a different approach...
The Tech Manual is supposed to describe how things we see on the show work. "In Universe"
So they come up with this theory after reading about arrays that the longer the better or more powerful. (Which is actually just misinterpreting the tech manual and then trying to make an explanation to back up that misinterpretation. But now they base most other deductions off of this misinterpretation. )
They look at scenes of phasers firing and deduce they must be correct but the problem is those shots never confirm nor deny any of that theory.
But then when we come to in show situations, designs and descriptions that contradict the theory they write those dozen or so instances off as bad writing or technobabble nonsense instead of trying see if the theory holds water.
The bigger problem with that is if their theory is based upon the tech manual and the tech manual is based upon all the shows and movies, well then their theory should work for all those specific situations on the shows, Especially when the show is directly talking about phaser output. But it doesn't.
The theory doesn't hold water more than just a few times.
Array length means nothing except a wider firing arc. Its all about the power transfer and output.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
I'm not an expert or anything but I once read this in the TNG tech manual. The longer the array,the more emitters it houses. This has the affect of increasing the damage of the phaser beam once fired. The glow we see from either end of the array on the shows and in movies are the accumilation and rapid increase of energy from either end of the array.
This does mean that the phaser banks on the Galaxy Saucer alone, are rather powerful. Which sorta makes sense doesn't it? Since the ship was supposed to detach in an emergency, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have more array strips on the saucer IF it it didn't matter?
Clearly it must (more emitters=more energy=more powerful shots).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Wether or not larger arrays equal more power is one thing. It was never literally spelled out in the TM in those words and it was never spelled out in the show in those words (in fact, there is at least one on-screen canon occasion that directly contradicts that theory - however, it was also made under special circumstances and seemed in no way to be regular protocol as it even damaged the emitter, I think). All that is left is interpretation and reasoning which however can only go so far because you mustn't ever forget we're talking about a science fiction show here. It's fictious. They got basically magic devices that can do hubblebabloo if the need arises.
One thing that gets repeated quite often attempting to debunk DDIS stance is the loss of energy involved in "transfering" power across the array, sometimes reasoned by real-life engineering knowledge. While this might be true under current, real circumstances sometimes we just have to accept that the Star Trek universe works in different ways which can just be explained with "they developed transparent aluminium and that can do that". Basically, loss of energy seems to not be a problem in Star Trek at all, for whatever reasons (probably because it isn't important ).
Let me just say, I am not an engineer or physicist. I have a degree in a ecologic science discipline with a biological background. Now, don't let me get started what is wrong when Star Trek tries to explain various enviromental effects, genetical implications (my favourite XD), biological contexts or behavioural analyses of alien species. But I just accept that this world Star Trek takes place in just works that way.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Wether or not larger arrays equal more power is one thing. It was never literally spelled out in the TM in those words
It may not have been literally spelled out as such (I'd have to check again myself), it certainly left me with this impression. Believe me, its been many years since I read it, so it was certainly clear enough to leave me with a lasting impression.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
Comments
One with the Nemesis neck?
That's because Pulse Phaser Cannons of the Defiant's type hadn't been invented yet, and the Pulse Phasers of the Miranda class were woefully underpowered even compared to the short phaser array on the stardrive.
Well the perspective is one ship that can be divided.
It's interesting, when you consider the stresses that the ship would incur operating at impulse cruising around at a third light speed, the structural integrity field is much more important to the ship staying in one piece than the duranium and tritanium. And the Duranium and tritanium is insanely tough.
Also consider that the nacelles are also designed to be blown off in an emergency.
I think she is just because of the hull configuration, the Intrepid, the Prometheus, even Arturis' fake Dauntless all show that the longer design seems to be faster.
From a Doylist perspective, John Eaves said he wanted to design the Porsche to Probert's Cadillac. There's no slow Porsche.
I can't see the ship that inherits the name Enterprise being in the same speed family as the Equinox. Every ship that's been called Enterprise that we've heard about such things was the fastest at the fleet when she was deployed and in the 1701's case was the fastest for 20 years. The ship that succeeded the Constitution class? The Transwarp project Excelsior.
It's funny, I was going to buy that that Christmas. I didn't, the toy's saucer section was too thick and didn't sit right with me. I had the E-D though. Too easy to lose her nacelles.
That depends on your definition of kinetic. It certainly doesn't impact like a bullet, railgun, or mass driver if that's what you mean, where the damage is primarily from the fact that it moves really fast (relativistic speeds).
The makers seem to be applying kinetic to bombs, things that cause explosive shock. Which is technically ordinance. It really should just be explosive damage and be done with it.
That in and of itself is incorrect though.
Beyond 750k KM a photon torpedo has to use the matter and antimatter in its warhead as fuel thus weakening the detonation if it connects.
An issue I think is greater than the range of the weapon is that beyond say a million kilometers or so, you're dealing with the fact that a phaser is limited by the speed of light and most ships can just jump to warp to dodge. At point blank range it's almost impossible to react out past a few light seconds it becomes more complex. The maximum effective tactical range of a phaser is thus rated at 300,000 kilometers or one light second.
That same reasoning applies somewhat to torpedoes, but torpedoes can follow the target as long as they don't warp jump.
I think that accounts for why Star Trek battles always occurred at knife fight range.
Look at Mass Effect or Star Wars. Star Trek ships are insanely maneuverable by comparison.
It reminds a bit of the US Military's erroneous belief that long range guided missiles would kill dog-fighting.
Mine tactics and harassment on the way to the in close engagement, I hear you.
Very true.
The thing is that Security in TOS was a position that was a red shirt. Thus under TNG he would've started in Gold.
Tasha by contrast if Worf wasn't Security chief (and it's perfectly understandable to think he was at times) she was the Tactical officer and Security chief hybrid. And she always wore gold.
And he and Geordi swapped Conn and then Worf was at Security, it was weird. Remember when the D had like three Chief Engineers?
Gene hated the red shirt idea. HAAAATED IT.
And he was gonna be more intellectual and grounded in TNG.
Yeah it was Command Track, Engineering, Operations, Science, and Medical.
The interesting thing about TNG is that ALL dedicated Conn officers wore command red. That makes some sense as navigation and piloting are critical for the guy in the chair, but it's still more of a starship operations thing.
That's not to say it was terribly strict, as other divisions would still where their color, but to be a Commander you had to be command track qualified (Troi and Crusher).
Tactical is a part of Command though. The commanding officer has to be the boss tactician on his ship.
That said STO's Command specialization IS correct for the BOFFs. It should be default for Captains though.
Tactical is odd in Star Trek. It's been hybridized with the security chief when that role has been present. Reed was the Armory officer which was a Tactical officer in all but name (to the point that he even named the precursor to red alert tactical alert) but he had ALL the security duties to the point he was ticked when the MACOs came aboard and took over that role. TOS had neither with Sulu being the most dedicated gunner on the ship when they weren't playing Silent Service. In the films Chekov was the Tactical Officer while Security wasn't really mentioned, though in VI Uhura showed up with the security team.
Worf went to command red again when he became the Strategic Operations Officer which was the coordinator for ALL tactical operations in the Bajor sector at least, certainly a tactical and command position.
If I had to hazard a guess it seems they tried to set up the BOFFs so there was one for each bridge station. (and then promptly forgot Conn). Security station, tactical station, Ops manager, engineering, Science, and then mandatory medical.
Legitimately there should be a small tactical department on a ship just so you can always have a tactical officer on duty and not force one officer to be responsible for tactical operations and ship's security. You don't want to divide the attention of the guy firing weapons to deal with a boarding party.
The tactical department should be responsible for maintaining and fine tuning the ship's weapons in addition to threat force analysis.
But it wouldn't be a full division. I'd place it under the command track red as well myself.
Here's the background.
http://images-cdn.perfectworld.com/arc/3c/24/3c24e40f3731ff0f7d92ef5520ff8ae01429639001.jpg
At least looks like an upgraded Sovereign model.
I was wondering that as well.
I was never a fan of that design and that ship in particular, so whatever.:o
If they would give it some forward facing pylons in addition (not wider or more narrow, simply the same as the sov. just forward facing) and remake the majestic and noble models (for some parts to be used) then it could be worth a look imo.
While writing this, am i the only one wondering why they made all Sovereign variants acessible to T5-U (or better said endgame) while the exploration Cruisers variants (Celesial, Envoy) are not?
Don't get me wrong, all of those variants (majestic, noble, envoy, celestial) look horrible. But there are some parts that COULD be useful imo.
I just don't like things to be incomplete, if you know what i mean.
I was talking from a production point of view, not in-universe. Sorry i haven't made that more clear.
What Miranda pulse phasers are you talking about?
(ST:3 "pulse" phasers wheren't miranda exclusive if you're talking about those)
yeah season 1 TNG was odd with the command structure there was 3 different chief engineers. the guy argus, then the woman, and one that was only in the first episode
gordie was the Conn officer and navigation. worfs official roll until season 2 when he took over officially as tactical and security was relief officer. he filled in for all bridge postings main reason he still wore read till season 2 he was still the relief officer (that and they had not created the costume yet and where still thinking of getting a new actor to replace tasha)
instead of hiring on new actors they just moved worf and gordie around and put them in costumes they thought looked better on them so it was a win win
also any one else remember the holographic displays the D was using back in season one that went a way by season 2?
http://www.pagan-gerbil.net/images/blog/Star-Trek-Episode-Autopsy--The-Last-Outp_68F0/image_4.png
Yeah i always found that technology to be very cool.
Sadly they abandoned it similar like Holo-communicator from "For the Uniform" (DS9: 5x13). Both where interesting and futuristic concepts imo.
i think it is because of the way it was explained.
the way you present it leave too much the impression that in the end it is a fan biased opinion.
even i was thinking that in the beguining.
this is usually how you proceed to demonstrate this "theory", ready? here we go:
longer arry = more powerfull array, because: "description from the tech manual", and proof: visual fx of the energy feed in the show.
while i do bielieve now that the best way to convinced them is to do it backward, in short:
what the purpose of the energy feed visual? explanation : " tech manual description", conclusion: the longer the array, the more powerfull a shot could be.
when you try to find the explanation to the energy feed ( the most constant things in star trek, i am dare to said... well exept the holodeck malfunction maybe;) ), only there you can see that all others explanations given so far don't fit.
indeed you don't light up an emiter in the array to then transfet it energy on an other emiter at the opposite side of the array to hit a target, it just daesn't make sense... at all.
and here the tech manual description come to give substance to the theory, to connect the dots.
all this show that even if it is not explicitly said in the tech manual, it is just the logical conclusion.
when people have to think this for themselves and not be given the conclusion all done, then they will realise that this is the best explanation so far.
unless you are dealing with someone that can not stand that the galaxy might be more powerfull than a sovereign, but we all known that these people will never be convinced even if the creator of the show told them so.
well until someone found a better explanation, but i really doubt it now.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
A lot like. Future hinting devs maybe?
Forward swept like the Regent. Yeah no. That was the original design in fact. They scrapped it when one of the producers pointed out to John Eaves that with the pylons in a forward swept configuration the ship looks like a turkey in the pan when viewed from above so he switched it to the swept back. The swept back also then lined up with the Constitution style.
I think they made the right call. If you didn't care that much you wouldn't have bother to share though.
I happen to like parts of the Noble myself. I use the saucer, pylons and nacelles. I want the internacelle pod from the pre-beta period, but the Devs seem to have thrown that away.
I don't get why they cast aside the other variants myself to be honest.
No worries, it's a bit questionable in truth, depending on where you look, the phasers on the roll bar of the Miranda were described as pulse phaser. (Star Trek 2) But yeah the firing was the same as the Constitution's so they were likely the same type of bank, though the Miranda's rollbar phasers didn't have the same kind of placement.
Frankly it was a bit silly for Worf and Geordi to not have designated rolls to begin with.
Those were immensely cool...probably immensely expensive and a little difficult to act with.
Like a turkey in a pan... i heard that story too. (wow if you think about it for a moment how they come to their decisions.... unbeliveable)
Well if you're trying hard enough you can find a stupid comparison for every Starship design.
For STO, i'd favor both options, a backwards swept one (for those who can't get that turkey out of their heads) and a forward facing one for those who don't have that problem, lol.
Why not have both?!?
The amount of work for Cryptics devs would be minimal, since they would just have to copy and mirror the existing (backward swept) one.
Not really, but i like to have a own opinion about certain stuff.
exactly! you're getting it! and those emitters the EPS submaster flow regulator selects to supply power to then sequentially discharge it toward the fireing point, seen visibly in the show! i'm glad we finally settled this once and for all :^)
the flow of plasma in the EPS conduits meters below the hull explain the glow effect? :rolleyes: the visual is energy in the prefire chambers discharging sequentially toward the firing point. and we know every single emitter between the beginning of the glow effect and the firing point had power routed to it, and then passes it on, otherwise there would be no explanation for the glow to happen anywere but the firing point. your whole thing appears to be no explanation is better then my explanation, that reeks of fanboyism you accuse me of.
when i say capacitor, for all intents and purposes, thats the prefire chamber it mentions, that gets power from the EPS submaster flow regulator, and then passes it down the array, as seen viably in the show.
about the cumulative effect, how spoon fed do you need to be, SERIOUSLY. this manual was written to be 'in universe', as if this cumulative point was so OBVIOUS it didn't even need to be mentioned to any laymen federation citizen reading it.
you actually said this with a strait face after the mental gymnastics you pulled trying to debunk the obvious, wile offering no coherent alternate explanation.
the superior interpretation of the manual is found here, i need not rewrite it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=23029901&postcount=1147
Requiring an understanding of all the factors involved so i could properly stat the ships in game, this lead to great debates about how arrays worked, and many other things. I didn't care much for the galaxy back then, only saw its poor performance in the show, and didn't scrutinize it much. though when i started to, and read the tech manual, it really became apparent how scalable the trek tech was, how often things were upgraded, leaving no class the most advanced for more then a year or so, and were basically bigger was always better. It detailed how modular the ship was, indicating that what you saw in tng wasn't any sort of 'normal' configuration for the galaxy, just 1 possible extreme way to outfit one.
This created a gradual admiration for the galaxy class, and i came to like its look, more so then the over styled look of the sovereign. The galaxy may be my favorite ship now, but its not by any extreme margin. And i never tried to gather facts based on proving that my favorite was best, i gathered facts and my mind was changed, this is the opposite of fanboyism.
Your poor grasp of forum quoting makes your post to time consuming to respond to point to point, and most of your 'points' are so backwards and flawed, full of logical fallacies and arguments of authority that they don't dignify a response. I'll just try to explain it all again.
The TNG TM clearly states the significance of the individual emitter segments, and how they link together. There is no need to further elaborate, because logic dictates that, if the emitters can link together to mass their discharged energy into a single beam, the more emitters you have, the stronger the beam. Longer arrays have more emitters. Therefore, logic dictates that a longer array can link more emitters into a single beam discharge, allowing for a greater discharge of energy.
Here is the elaboration that is not necessary.The TM states each emitter segment has a plasma distribution manifold, which branches into a supply conduits leading into the segment and ending in the prefire chamber. This is fed by an EPS submaster flow regulator, the principal mechanism controlling phaser power levels for firing, by controling which segments get plasma, and how much. then comes the visual effect in the show, a glow moving across the TOP of the array, the accumulation of energy from the emitter segments, gathered at the optimal discharge point before firing. How can their be a glow at all, if every emitter has its own energy tap, and there is no cumulative effect from multiple emitters in an array? there wouldn't be arrays at all, let alone a glow passing over it.
Try explaining this to me, a target aft of a GCS has at least 4 arrays pointed at it at all times. If its above the pylons, and your specifically behind the venture, you have 6 arrays pointed at you thanks to those nacelle arrays it has. Below the nacelle pylon, you also have 4 arrays pointed at you, 5 if you're low enough, from the belly array.
Does that mean a GCS has 4,5,6 times as much aft firepower then it does forward firepower?
Well, no, a GCS has a lot more total emitters pointing forward then it does any other direction. but, why then doesn't the ship discharge a shot from every single emitter that has line of sight with a target, since an emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing? Where is the phaser wall that should be fired at a target from the main arrays, and seriously, what is up with that moving glow effect only leading to a single shot being fired, when emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing?
because an emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, why are there arrays? mid to late 24th century phaser emitter banks have emitter crystals that allow them to shoot in any direction they have line of sight with, there is no longer a mechanical turret that has to be lined up before a shot can fire. since emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, an array configuration has literally 0 advantage over just carefully placed single emitter banks. there has to be over 400 total phaser emitters in a dense linear arrangement on a GCS, called arrays, and since emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing, 99% of them are redundant. what a hilarious resource boondoggle of biblical proportion the phaser array is, because again, emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing. Not even split up arrays on intrepids and sovereigns of ANY size could be justifiable in any way, even one of those tiny 10, 15, 20 emitter arrays covering aft fireing arcs have 10, 15 or 20 times the emitters then are necessary.
This is the logical conclusion of thinking emitter cumulative effect is totally not a thing. i would hardly call this fitting perfectly with whats in the show, where ships DO have phaser arrays, and DO have a moving glow effect before fireing shots.
there is actually quite a bit more to arrays theory then just # of emitters= firepower, i briefly mentioned it already
But i concluded going into all that was above edalgo reading level, and would probably just add more confusion then clarity. There's a whole huge SDE theory i could post, thought up all the way back in like 09 on the star trek legacy moding forum that is basically universally accepted as most likely the exact science of arrays among my peers. But we cant even accept that emitters in an array have a cumulative effect around here, so i have not gone any further then that.
i think that was the only time the enterpise ever fully unleashed hell on some one. it doed not even do that tot he borg. now geordi was in command at the time (season 1) and not picard so it probably had something to do with it
Nope, they unleashed hell against the Borg cube in The Best of Both Worlds. Rewatch the episode. They start by firing everything they have against it.
edit:
i seem to be wrong it's a complete reuse of the footage just with the added tractor effect
only something the size of the borg cube would be large enough for those more aft arrays to have line of sight with a target in front of the ship. and that was another fx error, those should have fired from the bottom of the pylons, not the front of them.
also it should be noted that they were trying to hit the cube with an many frequencies as possible, in an attempt to deal any damage at all, thats the main reason they fired every array they could line up against it. though strangely, not the ventral main array. well, thats early 90s effects for ya.
Or, maybe, just maybe, he's just right and you're simply advocating ignorance here?
To answer your question of why there are arrays in the first place if number of emitters doesn't matter, there are two easy answers:
In universe, because it gives greater fire arcs and redundancy. That reason alone is sufficient to explain the existence of arrays, and further explains why later ships continued to have arrays, but inexplicably broke them up when there was no reason to do so. Your belief requires that Star Fleet built an explorer and gave it the best firepower they had, and then when they had an opportunity to make even stronger arrays on their more militaristic ships, they inexplicably made design decisions that lead to much weaker weapons.
In the real world, they exist because they look cool, full stop. Any "engineering principles" that were used to justify it were simply post-hoc rationalizations. The tech manuals etc were simply created to provide a "refrigerator logic" level of explanation, they don't even hang together with themselves. It was certainly never the intent to create something resembling a set of actual "rules" you could use to extrapolate how the ship "really" works, because the writers and showrunners were never really interested in that. If one day the ship needed to work a certain way for a plot point, then so it would be, even if it didn't make sense in the larger context of the continuity of the show. In other words, in attempting to base your rationale on "knowing" the canon, you've built your argument on a foundation of shifting sand.
Now, here's the reason it doesn't work the way you say:
With any transfer of energy, there are only three possibilities (well, really, only one, but I want to demonstrate that even if you were "right", you'd still be wrong):
First, the transfer is slightly inefficient, and some of the energy transferred is lost as heat. In the real world, this is how it always works. Given that they talk about power couplings burning out in the show, it seems likely that this is still how it works in the Star Trek universe. Given that, it is literally impossible to get more power by transferring from one emitter to the next than you would get if you just put all that power through the firing emitter directly. Whatever the reason for making long strips of emitters is, it cannot simply be making them more powerful, because it would have the exact opposite effect.
Second possibility, to pre-empt the tired "but it's Star Trek, so physics doesn't apply" - let's assume the transfer is 100% efficient (which, again, is actually impossible AND doesn't match the show). Guess what - number of emitters STILL doesn't matter, because with 100% efficiency you haven't gained any power relative to a single power transfer - you've simply avoided losing any.
Thus, in order to make sense at all, you have to believe that somehow transferring power from one emitter to the next magically adds energy. Literally, it would have to be magic, because no other explanation would do. Even if you decided to run with it - this creates all sorts of other crazy problems that would instantly break the Star Trek universe - for example, if transferring energy from one emitter to another somehow creates more energy, why are there warp cores at all? Why not just power everything by just endlessly looping power between your magical emitters and bleeding off the excess power? Taken to the extreme, these emitters are a source of infinite energy, evidently, which means they should also have infinite mass, which is... you know... bad.
Now, you may try to assert that spreading across the emitters makes the load easier to bear, and thus allows for larger blasts, but that's on face nonsense. The fact of the matter is that ultimately it's always going to come down to the power throughput that last emitter can handle - it doesn't matter if the energy came from multiple sources, or one source - in the end, it's all going through one final transfer, and if that coupling can't carry the power, it will fail. If that coupling CAN carry the power, that would negate the need to spread the power out in the first place, because if you can build one power junction that can carry that energy, you can build multiple (indeed, you would have to, in order to make it so every emitter on the array could function). Thus, you could just shunt the power directly - again, whatever the reason is for the arrays, it can't be this.
A slightly more clever argument might be to think of every emitter as a capacitor which holds power and then releases it down the line when fired. That even makes some sense, as far as it goes. The problem there is that it doesn't actually prove that the array is more powerful based on the number of emitters, it really only relates it to capacitors. Since the capacitors don't have to be tied to an emitter, it's easy to see how a shorter array with a larger internal store of capacitors (or even simply more effective capacitors) could be more powerful. Moreover, the given rate of fire of the phasers means the capacitor theory has problems - if the warp core can refill the capacitors fast enough to fire off the rapid shots we see on the show, then for all practical purposes it is providing the power instantly, with obviates the need for the capacitors in the first place. Thus, even in this best case scenario, your argument STILL doesn't hold water - the Galaxy arrays are not more powerful because of length, they are more powerful because of the capacity of the attached capacitors, and those capacitors don't necessarily have to be associated with arrays, nor do they seem to be necessary (or practical) given the rates of fire we see on the show.
I agree with this explanation so much!
There's nothing wrong with the swept back pylons from a structural point of view though.
I originally read it in the behind the scenes sketchbook.
So'na Battlecruisers are boomerangs. I got into an argument in chat with people saying that ALL Federation starships look like toilet seats (even the Defiant).
This is something I can wholeheartedly agree with.
I think in this regard, I'm hoping the Command Battlecruisers with the multiple parts will be the norm going forward...though I don't think there's anything that's going to save those Pilot ships. That's totally fair, and I do tend to get agitated about such things. I know this is a Galaxy thread but there's no need to bash the Sovereign.
Definitely. I'm hopeful.
I, the only one coherently connecting the dots, is doing the opposite of advocating ignorance, I assure you. Apparently, there is yet to be a person that even understands, or even read, my actual position. Now who's ignorant.
No. Array emitter segments have a fire arc of everything they have line of sight with, you don't need them spiraled across the ship to line up a shot if thats all an array is supposed to be good for. If emitters in an array didn't have some cumulative firepower effect, they could get away with mounting about 20 emitters on the whole ship in place of 400+ in array form. Don't even try to justify there being 20 times as many banks then would be necessary. Wile at the same time offering no explanation for why only 1 shot is fired by an array at a time, and why their is a moving glow effect to the firing point that you also have no explanation for.
Whats this more militaristic ship? the sovereign? They aren't in the same weight class, 1 doesn't replace the other, and the galaxy was not built during anything that could be mistaken for a peace time, which is surrey what your implying. And weather a GCS is a dedicated explorer, or dedicated battleship, or anything in between depends entirely on how the basic space frame is later outfitted.
Give them a bit more credit, they actually bent over backwards to keep the tech consistent, but its a popular meme that it was all over the place, it really wasn't as far as tech was concerned. Not to mention the phaser effects were particularly consistent, even with the late 80s to the 90s pre cgi vfx they had to work with. The TNG tech manual is the writers bible turned into a fun in universe reference. Its not some TRIBBLE together after the fact bit of technobabble, the guy credited for writing the manual also was a part of making the show, the manual is the second hardest canon in all of trek, next to the shows and movies.
In the real world, power isn't in the form of plasma, running through conduits that magnetically contain it, so not even heat radiates into the pipeing.
so 1+1 literally isn't 2, gocha. Oh... wait, you actually think im saying 1+0=>1, you literally have no understanding of my bulletproof explanation. As usual, i have to defend my position from people thinking i have some entirely different position. SO tired of this. It really does seem pointless to respond to anyone skeptical, no mater how simple i make it, they cant or wont understand it.
Ignorance of basic tech trek can make you assume all kinds of things. Plasma magnetically contained in a conduit most likely DOES have ZERO loss in transfer, because if it didn't, they couldn't contain antimater in the same type of magnetic fields, and the ship would never be able to vent all the heat EPS conduits would give off.
You OBVIOUSLY missed the part were i said each segment contributes power to the whole, wile the glow passes over them. 1 segment isn't putting its power into an empty, adjacent segment next to them, that would be POINTLESS, and yes, no magic additional energy would be created in that process. Every single segment has an EPS tap running to it, so during the moving glow effect all those powered emitters act like a 1+1+1+1+1+1, etc.
oh and nothing breaks the star trek universe as bad as transporters that can site to site from earth to kronos, thats iconion gateway tier, not to mention a blood transfusion that can CURE DEATH. just saying.
Most of this is more responding to NOT my position, but the part about there being a limitation on the power throughput that last emitter can handle, obviously isn't an issue. There have been full array moving glow discharges, power drawn from every segment on the largest array, and it fired it no problem. In BoBW, it did dozens of these, one every second or less, for like minutes. This is not a possibly a limiting factor.
Oh no it wouldn't, thats the genius of an array configuration over a huge bank, the size of say the entire array, that would be as powerful as the entire array. the array can dump its full power shot in any direction, a bank wouldn't have a fraction of the fireing arc, thats part of what makes arrays so great. Also the packaging of an array is totally scalable at any array length, the internal footprint for a weapon of such power is microscopic compared to centralized weapon banks of similar power, the power feeds are numerous and small, there isn't a gigantic EPS conduits needed to support the single large banks, there isn't a chance the entire saucer section would be flooded by plasma if that huge conduit were to breach, and there isn't any real point of failure in the whole system. even if part of the array were to take a direct hit, all the other emitter segments could function around it, the advantages are endless.
This is why the galaxy X's lance is so stupid. If it was really that powerful to justify it's existence, the tech behind phaser emitters that powerful would be applied to array emitter segments too, instantly making the lance redundant, not ot mention inferior. The lance would only make sense on a small ship that couldn't fit a big 100 to 200 emitter segment array on it, something like a defiant of intrepid.
You just stumbled upon what is LITERALLY my exact position, in the most simple of terms.
They don't have capacitors per say, but ALL segments have a direct feed leading off from large eps conduits, and they can all discharge, in the mkX emitter's case 5.1 MW, toward a target or down its neighbor to a designated cumulative discharge point. If there was an 'off site' large capacitor somewhere, you wouldn't need the array, you wouldn't have the moving glow effect, you would just have 1 emitter discharging it all, which is exactly what the tos and tmp era phaser bank ball turrets did. Arrays are a better way, like i explained.
You cant actually refute anything, cant point out an actual error in the interpretation, all you can do is speak honeyed words to try to create doubt. Certainly couldn't answer a single question in my post before last.
Oh, a funny thing just occurred to me, if there is no cumulative effect, why are there 2 moving glows leading to each shot? there could only possibly be 1 moving glow if an accumulation of power on an array was not a thing, at least 2 emitters worth of power would contribute to the shot. That's literally checkmate, at least on the most basic, fundamental level.
I'm not an expert or anything but I once read this in the TNG tech manual. The longer the array,the more emitters it houses. This has the affect of increasing the damage of the phaser beam once fired. The glow we see from either end of the array on the shows and in movies are the accumilation and rapid increase of energy from either end of the array.
This does mean that the phaser banks on the Galaxy Saucer alone, are rather powerful. Which sorta makes sense doesn't it? Since the ship was supposed to detach in an emergency, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have more array strips on the saucer IF it it didn't matter?
Clearly it must (more emitters=more energy=more powerful shots).
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical
One thing that gets repeated quite often attempting to debunk DDIS stance is the loss of energy involved in "transfering" power across the array, sometimes reasoned by real-life engineering knowledge. While this might be true under current, real circumstances sometimes we just have to accept that the Star Trek universe works in different ways which can just be explained with "they developed transparent aluminium and that can do that". Basically, loss of energy seems to not be a problem in Star Trek at all, for whatever reasons (probably because it isn't important
Let me just say, I am not an engineer or physicist. I have a degree in a ecologic science discipline with a biological background. Now, don't let me get started what is wrong when Star Trek tries to explain various enviromental effects, genetical implications (my favourite XD), biological contexts or behavioural analyses of alien species. But I just accept that this world Star Trek takes place in just works that way.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It may not have been literally spelled out as such (I'd have to check again myself), it certainly left me with this impression. Believe me, its been many years since I read it, so it was certainly clear enough to leave me with a lasting impression.
Lag Watch:
Delta Rising: Warning
Anniversary Event: Severe
Iconian Season: Critical