Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28686
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Simon_Jester » 2016-01-29 11:05pm

It may be that that is how it works, but that there are ways to jury-rig things so as to allow a transport to or from a point other than the transporter pad. That would explain why they can do it at all, but don't do it often or in all the situations where it would be an appealing solution to a problem.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Darth Lucifer
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 2004-10-14 04:18am
Location: In the mind of Gaius Baltar

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Darth Lucifer » 2016-01-30 08:02pm

Simon_Jester wrote:Beside that, it might actually be quite difficult to lock onto an object inside the hull with a transporter, unless that object is already on the pad.


In TOS "Day of the Dove", Spock says about intraship beaming..."It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialise inside a solid object, a deck or wall."

This didn't seem to be as much as a problem in TNG, where emergency beaming to sickbay, beaming someone directly to the bridge, or site-to-site transports within the ship seemed to be a normal function of the more advanced starships of that era.
Image

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10387
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-01-30 08:21pm

Darth Lucifer wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Beside that, it might actually be quite difficult to lock onto an object inside the hull with a transporter, unless that object is already on the pad.


In TOS "Day of the Dove", Spock says about intraship beaming..."It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialise inside a solid object, a deck or wall."

This didn't seem to be as much as a problem in TNG, where emergency beaming to sickbay, beaming someone directly to the bridge, or site-to-site transports within the ship seemed to be a normal function of the more advanced starships of that era.

I suspect it's a combination of improved safeguards and sensors which would also explain why it's not used as safety device against boarders, also I suspect that materializing (partially)inside an solid object isn't totally harmless to the object in question either which why they don't risk that with boarders.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-01-31 01:33am

Lord Revan wrote:
Darth Lucifer wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Beside that, it might actually be quite difficult to lock onto an object inside the hull with a transporter, unless that object is already on the pad.


In TOS "Day of the Dove", Spock says about intraship beaming..."It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialise inside a solid object, a deck or wall."

This didn't seem to be as much as a problem in TNG, where emergency beaming to sickbay, beaming someone directly to the bridge, or site-to-site transports within the ship seemed to be a normal function of the more advanced starships of that era.

I suspect it's a combination of improved safeguards and sensors which would also explain why it's not used as safety device against boarders, also I suspect that materializing (partially)inside an solid object isn't totally harmless to the object in question either which why they don't risk that with boarders.

Please do recount all examples you know, where there were "boarders" and it would have been possible and useful to beam them to the brig (or anywhere else) but wasn't done?

At the moment, I can only remember the TNG episode "The High Ground".

And there one of the first thing they tried was to lock on transporters to the intruders. But it wasn't possible.

              WORF:
          Intruder alert, deck twelve.

              WESLEY:
          Another subspace reflection. Dimensional shift, sir.

              PICARD:
          Go to Red alert. Sound general quarters.

              [...]

              WORF:
          Intruders in Engineering

              DATA:
          Casualties reported on deck twelve. Sickbay responding.

              PICARD:
          Seal off all decks. Lock on transporters to the intruder signals.

              CREWMAN [OC]:
          Intruder signals unstable, Captain, I cannot lock on.

              DATA:
          They are moving inter-dimensionally. Neither transporters nor forcefields will contain them, sir.

On the other hand - one has to assume that if one intends to board an enemy ship that has transorter technology and with it the ability to transport the boarding party into the brig or into space, that one would equip the boarding party with transport inhibitors - that this is as much a common practice that there is no need to mention it as everyone assumes it anyway and would be surprised if there were no transport inhibitors. I mean - to us a transporter is a miraculous thing - but to the people in the 24th century it is as normal as it can get. Of course the miltary of that time would have considered all possible applications of the transporter technology and possibilities to prevent these applications.

User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Purple » 2016-01-31 07:09am

Darth Lucifer wrote:In TOS "Day of the Dove", Spock says about intraship beaming..."It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialise inside a solid object, a deck or wall."

This didn't seem to be as much as a problem in TNG, where emergency beaming to sickbay, beaming someone directly to the bridge, or site-to-site transports within the ship seemed to be a normal function of the more advanced starships of that era.

The two are not exclusive. I would after all imagine that a far greater threat than materializing inside a wall would be materializing inside a crate, chair or any other movable object. You can after all map the inside of your ship out perfectly from the blueprints to avoid walls.

And if we consider things this way and assume that their limitation is indeed one of precision and sensors than the examples you make would make some sense. Both the bridge and sickbay are wide open spaces that one would think are better monitored than a random hallway.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby NecronLord » 2016-01-31 06:41pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
Darth Lucifer wrote:
In TOS "Day of the Dove", Spock says about intraship beaming..."It has rarely been done because of the danger involved. Pinpoint accuracy is required. If the transportee should materialise inside a solid object, a deck or wall."

This didn't seem to be as much as a problem in TNG, where emergency beaming to sickbay, beaming someone directly to the bridge, or site-to-site transports within the ship seemed to be a normal function of the more advanced starships of that era.

I suspect it's a combination of improved safeguards and sensors which would also explain why it's not used as safety device against boarders, also I suspect that materializing (partially)inside an solid object isn't totally harmless to the object in question either which why they don't risk that with boarders.

Please do recount all examples you know, where there were "boarders" and it would have been possible and useful to beam them to the brig (or anywhere else) but wasn't done?

At the moment, I can only remember the TNG episode "The High Ground".

And there one of the first thing they tried was to lock on transporters to the intruders. But it wasn't possible.


On the other hand - one has to assume that if one intends to board an enemy ship that has transorter technology and with it the ability to transport the boarding party into the brig or into space, that one would equip the boarding party with transport inhibitors - that this is as much a common practice that there is no need to mention it as everyone assumes it anyway and would be surprised if there were no transport inhibitors. I mean - to us a transporter is a miraculous thing - but to the people in the 24th century it is as normal as it can get. Of course the miltary of that time would have considered all possible applications of the transporter technology and possibilities to prevent these applications.


I'm watching the episode now, and as further evidence on that, the Ansata "Terrorists" leave a bomb behind on the Enterprise warp core.

GEORDI'S COM VOICE
Explosive charge on the main warp
chamber...

PICARD
Transporter room three, lock on the explosive device and energize.

ENGINEER'S COM VOICE
It's scrambling the sensors, Captain... I can't pinpoint it.

PICARD
Begin emergency evacuation...
prepare for saucer separation...
Mister La Forge, can you remove
the charge from the engine core...

49 INT. MAIN ENGINEERING (OPTICAL)

GEORDI
Stand by... I'm trying...

He grabs the charge on the engine core, and yanks. It
doesn't budge.

GEORDI
They've got it locked on
somehow... hold on...

Frenziedly he snatches a tool from a console, and
surgically removes the charge with the laser. It drops
into his hand. He moves quickly across the room to get
it away from the engine core... on the move --

STAR TREK: "The High Ground" - REV. 11/7/89 - ACT THREE 40.

49 CONTINUED:

GEORDI
Got it. Transporter Room, stand
by to lock on my signal and
transport two kilometers off the
starboard nacelle.

50 INT. MAIN BRIDGE

TROI
(reacts)
His signal... ?

Picard motions for her to be calm, Geordi knows what
he's doing...

51 INT. ENGINEERING

Geordi yanks off his communicator. He slaps it onto
the device as he pushes it out of Engineering... and
ducks back for cover... The sound of the bomb has
become an almost frenzied SCREAM.

GEORDI
Transporter Room, now...

52 EXT. SPACE (OPTICAL)

The bomb MATERIALIZES and EXPLODES.


Looks like scramblers are common enough that people leave them on explosive charges.

Thie episode is full of all sorts of cool things in this respect, like Geordi defeating the scrambler via using his commbadge, Picard calling for Saucer Seperation, and the Rutian/Ansata ground combat gear even going so far as to include burst fire rifles and helmets.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Darth Lucifer
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 2004-10-14 04:18am
Location: In the mind of Gaius Baltar

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Darth Lucifer » 2016-01-31 09:23pm

Please do recount all examples you know, where there were "boarders" and it would have been possible and useful to beam them to the brig (or anywhere else) but wasn't done?


Another instance of this is when an alternate Voyager is boarded by Vidiians in Deadlock.

Chakoteya.net wrote:[Vidiian Ship]

VIDIIAN: We have destroyed their weapons array.
COMMANDER: Manoeuvre us to within grappling range.

[Voyager 2 - Bridge]

(Thunk! The Vidiian ship grabs Voyager.)
TUVOK 2: They are cutting an access route through the hull on deck five.

[Voyager 2 - Corridor]

(Tuvok and a security guard are shot down.)
VIDIIAN: Vulcan. Male. The phaser blast damaged the right kidney, but the other organs are healthy.
SURGEON: Begin with them.
(The next organ donor is Paris.)

...a little later...

[Voyager 2 - Bridge]

JANEWAY 2: Commander?
CHAKOTAY 2: They've got everything below deck five, and I don't know how much longer we can keep them away from the Bridge.
JANEWAY 2: Mister Kim, how many Vidiians are there on the ship?
KIM 2: Three hundred and forty seven, and more are boarding.
CHAKOTAY 2: We're outnumbered two to one.
KIM 2: I've got an incoming subspace signal. It's from the other Voyager. They must've re-established the comm. link.
JANEWAY 2: On screen.
JANEWAY [on viewscreen]: Captain, this comm. link might not last much longer. What's happening over there?
JANEWAY 2: We've been boarded. The Vidiians are on the verge of taking over our ship. Are they on yours?
JANEWAY [on viewscreen]: No. We don't think they can detect our ship. Captain, we can have a security detachment cross the spatial rift and board your ship within five minutes.
JANEWAY 2: No. If we do that, the Vidiians might become aware of your Voyager. That would put both ships at risk.
JANEWAY [on viewscreen]: We can't just stand by and let you all be killed.
JANEWAY 2: I'm not about to let that happen. I'll destroy this ship.


Chakotay mentions that everything below deck five is taken, but the transporter room is canonically on deck four. It's remotely possible that the Vidiians somehow managed to disable the transporters, but that's not very likely nor was it ever mentioned. The power drains could be a factor but again, never mentioned since they were too busy trying to reconnect with the other Voyager.

Hell, at the first sign of intruders breaching the hull, I would have evacuated that section, waited until their party came aboard, then decompressed the entire deck. Would have worked too, since the boarders weren't wearing exosuits or other suitable gear.
Image

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-01 07:23am

Darth Lucifer wrote:
Please do recount all examples you know, where there were "boarders" and it would have been possible and useful to beam them to the brig (or anywhere else) but wasn't done?


Another instance of this is when an alternate Voyager is boarded by Vidiians in Deadlock.

Another instance?

Which instances are there already?


Darth Lucifer wrote:
Chakoteya.net wrote:[...]


Chakotay mentions that everything below deck five is taken, but the transporter room is canonically on deck four. It's remotely possible that the Vidiians somehow managed to disable the transporters, but that's not very likely nor was it ever mentioned. The power drains could be a factor but again, never mentioned since they were too busy trying to reconnect with the other Voyager.

As the TNG episode "The High Ground" shows that using the transporter against intruders (and bombs) is - as it seems - a standard procedure as long as it is possible - and as we have not seen the bridge in the VOY episode "Deadlock" the whole time, it seems probable that it was considered to beam the boarding Vidiians away but that it was not possible.
At least there is no evidence that it was possible to use the transporters.
And it makes sense to assume that the Vidiians can prevent unwanted transportations. They do have their own sophisticated transporter technology after all and would be familar with the countermeasures to prevent unwanted transportations. This could explain, why they have relied on docking equipment to capture the Voyager and have not simply beamed aboard. The latter could be fatal if there are measures active to prevent exactly that.

Insofar the VOY episode "Deadlock" seems to be a non sequitur as it does not provide evidence or counter-evidence regarding the possibility of the usage of transporters against intruders.

Considering the tactical scenario of the OP, the question now is, if the Stormtroopersdo have the ability to prevent unwanted transportations.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-01 07:43am

NecronLord wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:[...]

At the moment, I can only remember the TNG episode "The High Ground".

And there one of the first thing they tried was to lock on transporters to the intruders. But it wasn't possible.


On the other hand - one has to assume that if one intends to board an enemy ship that has transorter technology and with it the ability to transport the boarding party into the brig or into space, that one would equip the boarding party with transport inhibitors - that this is as much a common practice that there is no need to mention it as everyone assumes it anyway and would be surprised if there were no transport inhibitors. I mean - to us a transporter is a miraculous thing - but to the people in the 24th century it is as normal as it can get. Of course the miltary of that time would have considered all possible applications of the transporter technology and possibilities to prevent these applications.


I'm watching the episode now, and as further evidence on that, the Ansata "Terrorists" leave a bomb behind on the Enterprise warp core.

[...]


Looks like scramblers are common enough that people leave them on explosive charges.

Thie episode is full of all sorts of cool things in this respect, like Geordi defeating the scrambler via using his commbadge, Picard calling for Saucer Seperation, and the Rutian/Ansata ground combat gear even going so far as to include burst fire rifles and helmets.

To be honest: I was a little bit impressed with the reaction of Picard.


Suddenly he is informed that there are intruders. But he does not hesitate. He clearly follows procedures:
  1. Code red alert.
  2. Sound general quarters.
  3. Seal off all decks.
  4. Lock on transporters to the intruder signals.
And when he learns that there is a bomb, he again does not hesitate but gives clear orders:
  1. Lock on the explosive device and energize. When this did not worked:
  2. Begin emergency evacuation.
  3. prepare for saucer separation.
  4. If possible emove the charge from the engine core.

I think, after watching this, we can guess what would happen with intruders who are not protected against unwanted transportations.

User avatar
Darth Lucifer
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 2004-10-14 04:18am
Location: In the mind of Gaius Baltar

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Darth Lucifer » 2016-02-01 12:54pm

And it makes sense to assume that the Vidiians can prevent unwanted transportations. They do have their own sophisticated transporter technology after all and would be familar with the countermeasures to prevent unwanted transportations. This could explain, why they have relied on docking equipment to capture the Voyager and have not simply beamed aboard. The latter could be fatal if there are measures active to prevent exactly that.


I did a full rewatch, I got my aliens mixed up, it was Kazons who didn't have transporters. You're right on all that, plus transporters are affected by lots of things anyway.

Considering the tactical scenario of the OP, the question now is, if the Stormtroopers do have the ability to prevent unwanted transportations.


I would be inclined to think so, based on all of the past versus arguments I've been in and read over the years, though I can't recall any specific evidence for that right now. Imperial technology has some kind of electronic jamming, right? I don't think it would be too hard for them to miniaturize a device as part of standard stormtrooper armor or make armband devices like they use in Trek. If the need even arose to begin with.

I can't recall any instances of transporting people in motion in the first place come to think of all this. In TNG "The Schizoid Man", I remember they had to drop out of warp to beam an away team to the planet, then jump back to warp immediately because the Enterprise had to be somewhere else fast. In "The Best of Both Worlds (Part I)", the Enterprise had to precisely match velocities with the Borg ship to beam aboard the rescue party. I know in both cases it's the destination moving that was at issue but it's evidence to show that transporters have problems with moving objects. In Nu-Trek Chekov and Spock do this, but for the TV trek I'm a little fuzzy.

I'll poke for more examples of transporters and boarding actions when I get time.
Image

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-01 03:19pm

They beam crew off other ships which are in relative motion pretty regularly, and any planetary surface is in relative motion compared to the ship. Naturally I'm not sure of any instances of someone on the ship being transported while moving, but it is obviously possible to beam intruders away, or Picard wouldn't even bother trying to beam the intruders away.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-01 03:42pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:To be honest: I was a little bit impressed with the reaction of Picard.


Me too, I've been watching some TNG lately and am considering doing a Starfleet Competence thread (for instance in Unnatural Selection where they don't even board a derelict federation ship but use its prefix code to look inside) simply because the Vs debate has given a lot of prominence at least around here, to the examples of starfleet being stupid.

Watching BoBW, they had to match warp velocity for transport, (and the cube generated interference to stop them getting Picard back earlier) so I don't think that's wholly relevant to boarding actions, as even a minor difference in warp velocities would indicate a tremendous speed relative to the enterprise.

Compare the Enterprise beaming up the Scorpion fighter in Nemesis. That thing was going at a fair clip, by human-scale standards.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 01:06am

Darth Lucifer wrote:[...]You're right on all that, plus transporters are affected by lots of things anyway.

Please do recount all the things you know, that affect transporters - or provide a link to a source where all things that affect transporters are enumerated with the corresponding episodes mentioned.

My impression was that transporters are reliable. It may be that there are things affecting them. But that seems to be the exception. Your "transporters are affected by lots of things anyway." sounds as if it is a miracle if transporters do their work at all.

Darth Lucifer wrote:Imperial technology has some kind of electronic jamming, right?

I only know the movies and there all the jamming was done from vehicles.
I do not know if they have something they could carry with them on man, that could jamm.

Darth Lucifer wrote:I don't think it would be too hard for them to miniaturize a device as part of standard stormtrooper armor or make armband devices like they use in Trek. If the need even arose to begin with.

To know that transporters exist is one thing. But to prevent unwanted transportation, you have to know how they work. Do the Stormtroopers know how a transporter work? Are they familiar with subspace technology? And even if they know how the transporters are working, do they have the materials with them they would need to build an inhibitor?

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26827
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-02 09:34am

Darth Lucifer wrote:I don't think it would be too hard for them to miniaturize a device as part of standard stormtrooper armor or make armband devices like they use in Trek. If the need even arose to begin with.


For what it's worth, this is a 'standard equipment' scenario, with the exceptions of the upgrades for the Starfleet ship.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8539
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-02 09:51am

Well building a "transport inhibitor" is a fairly woolly suggestion since a) we've no idea how they work and b) there are several ways they could work, either interfering with the transport itself or preventing them from getting a sensor lock. The second option is easier to do on the fly IMO, since preventing a sensor lock means jamming sensors, and any competent military is going to have ECM gear available.

As for stuff that blocks or adversely affects transporters: off the top of my head we have shields (except when it's a plot point), certain naturally occurring ores (kelvanite (sp?) from Insurrection), whatever those bad guys from "The High Ground" were doing, atmospheric ion storms (Mirror, Mirror and Nemesis), IIRC it was hard to get a lock on the away team on a S8472 bioship in "Scorpion."
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 01:38pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Well building a "transport inhibitor" is a fairly woolly suggestion since a) we've no idea how they work and b) there are several ways they could work, either interfering with the transport itself or preventing them from getting a sensor lock.

I do not understand your point.

Of course do WE not know how transporters work and how unwanted transportation could be prevented.

The question is if the Stormtroopers know how a transporter works, how they can prevent unwanted transportation and if they can build an inhibitor with what they have available.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:The second option is easier to do on the fly IMO, since preventing a sensor lock means jamming sensors, and any competent military is going to have ECM gear available.

Interessting claim.

When I was at the armed forces of my nation a few years ago, the infantry was not equipped with ECM gear. We had to hide the traditional way - by using camouflage. And - as far as I have noticed then - most members of the infantry would not be able to to build ECM gear - especially if they do not have access to the necessary equipment.

Is there any canonical evidence that Stormtroopers are equipped with ECM gear?

What do Stormtroopers, who propably have not studied physics or engineering, know about their own technology and what do they know about Federation technology? Would they be able to improvise ECM gear?

Eternal_Freedom wrote:As for stuff that blocks or adversely affects transporters: off the top of my head we have shields (except when it's a plot point), certain naturally occurring ores (kelvanite (sp?) from Insurrection), whatever those bad guys from "The High Ground" were doing, atmospheric ion storms (Mirror, Mirror and Nemesis), IIRC it was hard to get a lock on the away team on a S8472 bioship in "Scorpion."

Do have Stormtroopers shields, naturally occurring ores, whatever those bad guys from "The High Ground" had or atmospheric ion storms in their bags or are equipped with them for a mission where they could need such things?

If not, I wonder how they could prevent unwanted transortations.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8539
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-02 01:52pm

I did say that the list I presented was off the top of m head and not an exhaustive list.

As for my point about building an inhibitor being a wholly question, I meant (and Im sorry if you didn't understand this) that it is difficult for us to say whether or not the boarding force can build an inhibitor, since we don't know how they work.

No, the stormtroopers may not have ECM gear on them, but as per the OP they come in a ship, and it is (I tihnk) reasonable to think the shuttle would have ECM gear that could be of use.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
Darth Lucifer
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 2004-10-14 04:18am
Location: In the mind of Gaius Baltar

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Darth Lucifer » 2016-02-02 03:06pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:Please do recount all the things you know, that affect transporters - or provide a link to a source where all things that affect transporters are enumerated with the corresponding episodes mentioned.


For starters: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Dat ... ansporters
Image

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 03:33pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I did say that the list I presented was off the top of m head and not an exhaustive list.

I have not claimed that you have said that the list you presented was an exhautive list. But nothing on the list you presented seems to be usefull for Stormtroopers to prevent unwanted transportation.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:As for my point about building an inhibitor being a wholly question, I meant (and Im sorry if you didn't understand this) that it is difficult for us to say whether or not the boarding force can build an inhibitor, since we don't know how they work.

Thank you for this clarification.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:No, the stormtroopers may not have ECM gear on them, but as per the OP they come in a ship, and it is (I tihnk) reasonable to think the shuttle would have ECM gear that could be of use.

Would an ordinary infantry man from today, someone with the rank of sergeant or below, know how to build ECM gear?

Would he know how to dismont the ECM gear built into a helicopter and how to use it to protect an infantry unit?

Is it possble at all to dismont the ECM gear built into a helicopter to use it to protect an infantry unit?

Is there any evidence that Stormtroopers are better educated than ordinary infantry man from today?

Is there any evidence that ECM gear built into a shuttle could be dismounted by Stormtroopers and used to protect a Stormtrooper infantry unit?

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8539
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-02 03:45pm

I was implying that the shuttle could use it's ECM gear to jam the starship's sensors without having to disassemble anything.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 03:47pm

Darth Lucifer wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Please do recount all the things you know, that affect transporters - or provide a link to a source where all things that affect transporters are enumerated with the corresponding episodes mentioned.


For starters: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Dat ... ansporters

55 records - from 693 episodes (Ent: 97, TOS: 79, TNG: 176, DS9: 173, VOY: 168) and 12 movies.

And some of these records do not describe things that affect transporters but what is possible with transporters (e.g.: restore someone from the transporter's "pattern buffer").

My impression still is that transporters are reliable. It may be that there are things affecting them. But that seems to be the exception. Your "transporters are affected by lots of things anyway." sounds as if it is a miracle if transporters do their work at all and as if we have to assume that Stormtroopers can prevent unwanted transportations by default.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8539
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-02 04:01pm

I think you're being rather unfair in how you interpret people's comments. "Lots of things affect transporters anyway" is a true statement - we do see many things which can affect, impede, block or interfere with transporters, some of which are quite mundane. This does not equate to "transporters are incredibly unreliable" or "it's a miracle they work at all."

The point is that it has been shown repeatedly that transporters can be highly sensitive devices so it is not unwarranted to speculate as to whether they will not work as ST fans might wish in this hypothetical boarding action. The fact that even naturally occurring minerals can block transporter signals suggests that other materials may be able to, which might include materials used in Stormtrooper armour.

Incidentally, upon further reflection the "transport inhibitors" in Insurrection are quite clearly affecting the targeting sensors not the actual transport process, since the Son'a were able to beam people away once they had been tagged.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 04:09pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I was implying that the shuttle could use it's ECM gear to jam the starship's sensors without having to disassemble anything.

If the shuttle has ECM gear and ...

    ... if this ECM gear is able to jam Starfleet sensors at all and ...

      ... if the ECM gear is able to jam Federation sensors even from inside the shuttle bay and ...

        ... if the ECM gear is able to jam sensors so that they can not detect Stormtroopers who have left the shuttle, ...
... than you are right.

Then it should not be possible for the transporter sensors to lock onto the Stormtroopers when they leave their shuttle.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8539
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-02 04:27pm

Whether it should jam Starfleet sensors is an easier question than might be imagined. Any sensors have to work on the same basic principles so it shouldn't matter if they are built by a previously unknown power. Obviously that won't include things like subspace sensors which the Imperials would have no knowledge of, but I can't recall those being used for transporters before. Certainly it will take some trial and error, if they don't just resort to full-spectrum jamming that is.

Jamming sensors within the shuttle bay shouldn't be too difficult either, the shuttle is already in the shuttle bay after all. As for jamming them enough to protect stormtroopers who leave the shuttle, I think "The High Ground" is a good case in point there, the bomb on the warp core couldn't be beamed away even though you could clearly see it - as with the Baku villagers in Insurrection, it had to be "tagged" before it could be locked on to.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 352
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-02 04:34pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I think you're being rather unfair in how you interpret people's comments. "Lots of things affect transporters anyway" is a true statement - we do see many things which can affect, impede, block or interfere with transporters, some of which are quite mundane. This does not equate to "transporters are incredibly unreliable" or "it's a miracle they work at all."

Good to know that you think that.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:The point is that it has been shown repeatedly that transporters can be highly sensitive devices so it is not unwarranted to speculate as to whether they will not work as ST fans might wish in this hypothetical boarding action. The fact that even naturally occurring minerals can block transporter signals suggests that other materials may be able to, which might include materials used in Stormtrooper armour.

The question is what we should assume by default. That transporters do work or that they do not work?

Do we assume that Stormtrooper armour includes materials that either prevent a sensor lock or transportation?

I think: Yes, it is possible that Stormtrooper armour includes materials that either prevent a sensor lock or transportation. But I see no evidence for this. And as transporters seem to work reliable and are only affected by a few exotic materials, it would be a big coincidence if Stormtrooper armour includes just such materials that either prevent a sensor lock or transportation - especially as - as far as I know - it is not established that the exotic materials that prevent a sensor lock or transportation can be used as armor (I have never heard that e.g. kelbonite is used in armor only because it is capable of deflecting or interfering with certain types of scans and energy beams, including the transporter).

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Incidentally, upon further reflection the "transport inhibitors" in Insurrection are quite clearly affecting the targeting sensors not the actual transport process, since the Son'a were able to beam people away once they had been tagged.

As far as I remember, that is not correct. Tags were used by the Son'a after Picard and the Ba'ku had reached the mountains. But in the mountains they did not used transport inhibitors anymore because there they were protected by the heavy deposits of kelbonite.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests