ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

USS Defiant vs The Millenium Falcon

vulcan7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5696

Report this Feb. 07 2010, 7:35 pm

The defiant will win because it got something that the millenium falcon doesnt-a cloaking device

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Feb. 07 2010, 9:54 pm

Quote (vulcan7 @ Feb. 06 2010, 8:35 pm)
The defiant will win because it got something that the millenium falcon doesnt-a cloaking device

Yes no shields and no weapons good for spying and running away yeah that is a tactical advantage right their especially since all that it would require to hit them is to track their drive emissions.  Not to mention the cloak equipped version of the Defiant was destroyed.

Guardian47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 6:42 am

Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 07 2010, 3:17 pm)
And you also seem to ignore the canon idea of jamming and ECMs

Dude, SW has gunners sitting right on the guns. Simple iron sights would be adequate to score hits in many of the cases, e.g. a non-maneuvering Malevolence from Republic ships that were also not maneuvering (relative to Malevolence).

There's nothing jammers can do about that. "They can jam everything except your eyes", or words to that effect, is what we're told in the ANH novelization. So they should be just fine with manned gunnery.

Instead, they just keep missing.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 10:44 am

Quote (Stinkoman @ Feb. 07 2010, 7:52 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 07 2010, 9:54 pm)
Quote (vulcan7 @ Feb. 06 2010, 8:35 pm)
The defiant will win because it got something that the millenium falcon doesnt-a cloaking device

Yes no shields and no weapons good for spying and running away yeah that is a tactical advantage right their especially since all that it would require to hit them is to track their drive emissions. ?Not to mention the cloak equipped version of the Defiant was destroyed.

Wasnt anything to do with the cloak though. Was the energy dampening weapons that the breen were using. Dont think thats any reflection on the cloaking device really especially since the battle it was fighting in was a straightforward dogfight with no need for a cloak.

Um I don't think i understand your point.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 10:47 am

Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 07 2010, 7:42 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 07 2010, 3:17 pm)
And you also seem to ignore the canon idea of jamming and ECMs

Dude, SW has gunners sitting right on the guns. Simple iron sights would be adequate to score hits in many of the cases, e.g. a non-maneuvering Malevolence from Republic ships that were also not maneuvering (relative to Malevolence).

There's nothing jammers can do about that. "They can jam everything except your eyes", or words to that effect, is what we're told in the ANH novelization. So they should be just fine with manned gunnery.

Instead, they just keep missing.

You do realize that even modern Naval vessels have trouble hitting a target with their guns with iron sites.  Hitting a target several miles away with nothing but your eyes and an iron site is difficult at best and most of the time you will miss.

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 11:04 am

Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 08 2010, 2:54 am)
Yes no shields and no weapons good for spying and running away yeah that is a tactical advantage right their especially since all that it would require to hit them is to track their drive emissions. ¿Not to mention the cloak equipped version of the Defiant was destroyed.


I think though that the Defiant disappearing, even for a very short time, would confer on them a tactical advantage (e.g. being able to line up the Falcon in its sights during the handful of seconds it was gone from the sensors).

Remember, although we the 'audience' know all about the Defiant's cloaking capabilities, Han Solo would not, and to him this unknown ship would have inexplicably disappeared from sensors - it's quite a leap of logic for him to immediately deduce the presence of a cloaking device (rather than, say, sensor jamming or interference, or even a malfunction from his own instruments), especially given their rarity in Star Wars. The Defiant would only really need to be cloaked for as little as 10 seconds or so to manoeuvre itself into a more favourable position and perhaps get a surprise hit on the Falcon when it de-cloaks in this new position, giving it a definite advantage, and I feel it would be rather unlikely that Solo would be able to realise what was happening and counter it within that short a timeframe.

Also, would Star Wars ships of this size actually be able to detect drive emissions? Are there any examples of craft of this type detecting emissions like that?


Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 08 2010, 11:42 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 07 2010, 3:17 pm)
And you also seem to ignore the canon idea of jamming and ECMs

Dude, SW has gunners sitting right on the guns. Simple iron sights would be adequate to score hits in many of the cases, e.g. a non-maneuvering Malevolence from Republic ships that were also not maneuvering (relative to Malevolence).

There's nothing jammers can do about that. "They can jam everything except your eyes", or words to that effect, is what we're told in the ANH novelization. So they should be just fine with manned gunnery.

Instead, they just keep missing.


I can't remember exactly, but aren't the gunners positioned so that the bulk of their vision is obscured by the gun itself and also sit a little to one side of it, making line of sight targetting far more difficult? Grievous was at least presenting as little of the Malevolence's profile as possible when he was retreating from Kenobi's fleet and was quite a number of kilometers away, so it wouldn't have been quite so easy a target.

I had also always assumed that the jamming or ECM actually corrupted the targetting data rather than completing erasing it, so that they still get targetting data but don't actually realise that they're missing by so much.

Guardian47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 12:21 pm

Quote (Vorta_the_point @ Feb. 08 2010, 1:04 pm)

Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 08 2010, 11:42 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ Feb. 07 2010, 3:17 pm)
And you also seem to ignore the canon idea of jamming and ECMs

Dude, SW has gunners sitting right on the guns. Simple iron sights would be adequate to score hits in many of the cases, e.g. a non-maneuvering Malevolence from Republic ships that were also not maneuvering (relative to Malevolence).

There's nothing jammers can do about that. "They can jam everything except your eyes", or words to that effect, is what we're told in the ANH novelization. So they should be just fine with manned gunnery.

Instead, they just keep missing.


I can't remember exactly, but aren't the gunners positioned so that the bulk of their vision is obscured by the gun itself and also sit a little to one side of it, making line of sight targetting far more difficult?


Only in regards to the broadside guns. ¿The DS1 guns had a cluster of dudes around the back side of the gun so it isn't clear who was doing what. ¿

Quote
I had also always assumed that the jamming or ECM actually corrupted the targetting data rather than completing erasing it, so that they still get targetting data but don't actually realise that they're missing by so much.



That idea does not work for short-range combat as is so frequently, exclusively seen in Star Wars.

Further, such concepts would imply utter stupidity on the part of mutually-jamming parties. After all, if everyone jammed sensors so much that shots against relatively stationary targets were thus made to miss, but you could see the ship right outside your gunport big as life and twice as ugly, only a fool would continue to rely on those sensors for targeting.

Even for WW1 mechanical computers had been developed for fire control based only on optical data, and systems like that saw service in WW2 as well. Such low-tech, unjammable systems would be quick enough to shoot down all but the fastest and most nimble fighters, and enemy warships would be a piece of cake.

So no, the issue is not one of jamming. ¿

One intriguing possibility is that Star Wars beam weapons themselves have questionable accuracy under certain conditions. In "Holocron Heist"[TCW2], a gunner atop a rolling tank vehicle is seen to have his on-screen crosshairs in one direction, but his gun fires in another some degrees off to the left. ¿We might suppose from this example that turbolasers and blasters may have aiming issues, say, when the barrel is hot, for instance. ¿But given how frequenly bad aim occurs even for opening shots, such a notion breaks down quickly. ¿In that case we might have to presume that they never shoot perfectly straight, but that would bring us back to the "lol idiots" sort of reasoning of "why would you use turbolasers at all, then?"

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 12:32 pm

With all apologies, these are the stupidest arguments.

All on-screen evidence from both franchises would indicate that the ships in "Star Trek" are much more built for ship-to-ship battle than those in "Star Wars." I love both franchises equally, but Star Wars has the disadvantage in ship-to-ship combat by FAR. The Defiant would eliminate the Falcon in less than a minute. No amount of fan-boy crapola and nerdgasams are going to change that.

The people that argue the "Wars" side always go with made-up stuff or HIGHLY inferred reasoning to prove their points, and no matter what you say, they are just going to respond with "NOOOOO!  YOU'RE WRONG!" anyway, so what's the point of discussion?

Guardian47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 3:17 pm

What's the point?

It depends. In this particular discussion not much of consequence has occurred, from my perspective. But generally speaking, forum debates provide two things:

1. I commonly use forum discussions as a way to help idiot-proof my pages or arguments. Sometimes, absurd things I wouldn't even think anyone would have so little shame as to claim get claimed, and become the opposition mantra. So, forum debates help me seek out such silliness and defeat it on my site accordingly.

2. Back in the day, my primary use of forums was for actual argument generation. Many of my pages are based on old arguments. Up to a point, confrontational fact-finding can be beneficial. Yes, a pure discussion would be more reasonable, but sometimes discussion fails to capture the truth of a matter because everyone's being agreeable and amenable. Sometimes, going up against partisans or even being partisan is helpful, to create the crucible of fact.
a. A debate on firepower might venture off into all sorts of territories and result in all sorts of calculations. So while I might be able to qualitatively note that TIE fighters didn't notably affect asteroidal material in TESB, the rounds of debate might cause me or someone else to produce calculations of what would be involved in doing so, providing an upper firepower limit that tells us things about other examples.
b. Throwing ideas into the crucible and seeing what made it out alive produced more solid ideas.

The above having been said, there are a couple of reasons why I don't generally involve myself in forums anymore.

1. The flaw in confrontational fact-finding is that sometimes partisans lose sight of the fact that the goal is fact-finding, not partisanship. ¿For instance, take this quote from one of the pro-Wars partisan old-timers:

Quote
1. Debate is not a search for truth. It is an exercise in rhetoric.
2. As it is not a search for truth, positions which I do not personally agree with may be adopted to win.
3. The objective of debate is to emerge the "victor," having used superior rhetorical tecniques to gain victory.
4. Any tactic empirically effective at advancing a position should be used.
{...} Capital-T truth is much too big an issue to ever be hashed out on webboards and USENET, and if you believe otherwise... well, you'll see. I hope.


From a fact-finding perspective, that's some sick crap right there. It is Saul Alinsky-esque in its indecency. ¿In effect, he declared war on Truth, and hoped to emerge victorious against it. Ironically, the same board where that statement was made is now moderated by pro-Wars partisans who are quick to ban those who dare to consistently state pro-Trek views, so from that perspective he might think he's 'won'. From my perspective, everyone's lost.

(At that point, though, we can return to #1, since of course the type of people who would employ those four axioms above are the kind most likely to say whatever absurd things or deceptive sleight-of-hand tricks they can say to try to 'win'. ¿But at the same time, there's a point beyond which they are merely being time vampires, arguing for the sake of arguing, and there are a lot of better things to do in the world than help some nut entertain himself by typing his absurdities and waiting for me to respond to them.)

2. Most of the pro-Wars partisans pretty much declared themselves victorious when their boy Saxton got published in an EU children's book with firepower and other numbers beyond even what they thought they could get away with normally in Vs. Debates. But around the same time, it had started to come to light that their claimed canon policy in which the EU was valid was, in fact, not valid ... in that sense, their defeat was assured just as they thought they were within sight of victory. Since then it's only gotten worse for them as other EU has contradicted that book. ¿As a result, they're becoming heavily marginalized, kind of like those old-school Trek tech people who refuse to accept anything remotely contrary to Franz Joseph.

From a debate perspective, though, the result is that they no longer bother to argue or research or ponder anything. They just cuss at you and tell you to go look at The ICS Bible, Book 3, Verses 1-23 ... as if it means anything.

3. Debates are nebulous things. At some point this discussion will slide off the main forum page and be largely forgotten. If there's a pertinent point, it might get lost. ¿That contributes to its time vampire nature, since (like the debate itself) it will not endure.

So usually, I discuss things over at StarfleetJedi.Net, since there's nowhere else to do so that is worthwhile. ¿But there is no pro-Wars partisan over there who can match the pro-Trek denizens, so it's usually a little bit too much a discussion and not a confrontational fact-finding mission.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 3:54 pm

Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 08 2010, 3:17 pm)
What's the point?

It depends. In this particular discussion not much of consequence has occurred, from my perspective. But generally speaking, forum debates provide two things:

1. I commonly use forum discussions as a way to help idiot-proof my pages or arguments. Sometimes, absurd things I wouldn't even think anyone would have so little shame as to claim get claimed, and become the opposition mantra. So, forum debates help me seek out such silliness and defeat it on my site accordingly.

2. Back in the day, my primary use of forums was for actual argument generation. Many of my pages are based on old arguments. Up to a point, confrontational fact-finding can be beneficial. Yes, a pure discussion would be more reasonable, but sometimes discussion fails to capture the truth of a matter because everyone's being agreeable and amenable. Sometimes, going up against partisans or even being partisan is helpful, to create the crucible of fact.
a. A debate on firepower might venture off into all sorts of territories and result in all sorts of calculations. So while I might be able to qualitatively note that TIE fighters didn't notably affect asteroidal material in TESB, the rounds of debate might cause me or someone else to produce calculations of what would be involved in doing so, providing an upper firepower limit that tells us things about other examples.
b. Throwing ideas into the crucible and seeing what made it out alive produced more solid ideas.

The above having been said, there are a couple of reasons why I don't generally involve myself in forums anymore.

1. The flaw in confrontational fact-finding is that sometimes partisans lose sight of the fact that the goal is fact-finding, not partisanship. ?For instance, take this quote from one of the pro-Wars partisan old-timers:

Quote
1. Debate is not a search for truth. It is an exercise in rhetoric.
2. As it is not a search for truth, positions which I do not personally agree with may be adopted to win.
3. The objective of debate is to emerge the "victor," having used superior rhetorical tecniques to gain victory.
4. Any tactic empirically effective at advancing a position should be used.
{...} Capital-T truth is much too big an issue to ever be hashed out on webboards and USENET, and if you believe otherwise... well, you'll see. I hope.


From a fact-finding perspective, that's some sick crap right there. It is Saul Alinsky-esque in its indecency. ?In effect, he declared war on Truth, and hoped to emerge victorious against it. Ironically, the same board where that statement was made is now moderated by pro-Wars partisans who are quick to ban those who dare to consistently state pro-Trek views, so from that perspective he might think he's 'won'. From my perspective, everyone's lost.

(At that point, though, we can return to #1, since of course the type of people who would employ those four axioms above are the kind most likely to say whatever absurd things or deceptive sleight-of-hand tricks they can say to try to 'win'. ?But at the same time, there's a point beyond which they are merely being time vampires, arguing for the sake of arguing, and there are a lot of better things to do in the world than help some nut entertain himself by typing his absurdities and waiting for me to respond to them.)

2. Most of the pro-Wars partisans pretty much declared themselves victorious when their boy Saxton got published in an EU children's book with firepower and other numbers beyond even what they thought they could get away with normally in Vs. Debates. But around the same time, it had started to come to light that their claimed canon policy in which the EU was valid was, in fact, not valid ... in that sense, their defeat was assured just as they thought they were within sight of victory. Since then it's only gotten worse for them as other EU has contradicted that book. ?As a result, they're becoming heavily marginalized, kind of like those old-school Trek tech people who refuse to accept anything remotely contrary to Franz Joseph.

From a debate perspective, though, the result is that they no longer bother to argue or research or ponder anything. They just cuss at you and tell you to go look at The ICS Bible, Book 3, Verses 1-23 ... as if it means anything.

3. Debates are nebulous things. At some point this discussion will slide off the main forum page and be largely forgotten. If there's a pertinent point, it might get lost. ?That contributes to its time vampire nature, since (like the debate itself) it will not endure.

So usually, I discuss things over at StarfleetJedi.Net, since there's nowhere else to do so that is worthwhile. ?But there is no pro-Wars partisan over there who can match the pro-Trek denizens, so it's usually a little bit too much a discussion and not a confrontational fact-finding mission.

I see...

Well, that makes all the sense in the world.

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Feb. 08 2010, 8:37 pm

Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 08 2010, 5:21 pm)
No, dude. ?Just no.

Look at the second picture in the sequence here. You are seeing the enormous posterior of the Malevolence with Venators right there in the same frame. ?Missing that ship is the literal equivalent of missing the broadside of a barn.


Crumbs... I was going from memory, I had forgotten the Malevolence was quite so massive.


Quote (Guardian47 @ Feb. 08 2010, 5:21 pm)
That idea does not work for short-range combat as is so frequently, exclusively seen in Star Wars.

Further, such concepts would imply utter stupidity on the part of mutually-jamming parties. After all, if everyone jammed sensors so much that shots against relatively stationary targets were thus made to miss, but you could see the ship right outside your gunport big as life and twice as ugly, only a fool would continue to rely on those sensors for targeting.

Even for WW1 mechanical computers had been developed for fire control based only on optical data, and systems like that saw service in WW2 as well. Such low-tech, unjammable systems would be quick enough to shoot down all but the fastest and most nimble fighters, and enemy warships would be a piece of cake.

So no, the issue is not one of jamming. ?

One intriguing possibility is that Star Wars beam weapons themselves have questionable accuracy under certain conditions. In "Holocron Heist"[TCW2], a gunner atop a rolling tank vehicle is seen to have his on-screen crosshairs in one direction, but his gun fires in another some degrees off to the left. ?We might suppose from this example that turbolasers and blasters may have aiming issues, say, when the barrel is hot, for instance. ?But given how frequenly bad aim occurs even for opening shots, such a notion breaks down quickly. ?In that case we might have to presume that they never shoot perfectly straight, but that would bring us back to the "lol idiots" sort of reasoning of "why would you use turbolasers at all, then?"


Eh, this sort of built-in stupidity seems to happen with depressing frequency in both Star Wars and Star Trek; in TCW, the Clones frequently display bouts of both tactical competency and mind-numbing idiocy within seconds of each other, and the supposedly ultimate warrior Jem'Hadar bred for battle have had their back-sides handed to them by humans in hand-to-hand combat just one too many times...

It doesn't really make any sense at all when you consider that we've seen them hit far smaller objects with far greater precision (e.g. Amidala's yacht, the Falcon, the asteroids in TESB) at other times. It's like when we see ship battles at quite high ranges in TOS - and then see the Klingons attacking DS9 (a stationery target to boot) with point blank strafing runs; it's all so contradictory that I tend to throw in the towel at formulating any sort of cohesive theory that fits everything at this level of detail, as madness that way lies.

Having said that, in my opinion I think it would probably mesh better with the times in the movies where they display far superior marksmanship against smaller targets to assume that the poor accuracy in other engagements is due to jamming and that the writers civilisations inexplicably haven't thought of not relying on those sensors, rather than the civilisations inexplicably not having thought of not relying on weaponry that can't shoot straight, especially since all of the better displays of accuracy happen in scenarios where there should be no jamming present. It's stupid, but since both alternatives are stupid, I feel this one meshes slightly better with what we see onscreen at other times.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Narada, 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum