Tactics Scenario: Boarding Action [SW:TFA Spoilers]

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
FaxModem1
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5942
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

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

Postby FaxModem1 » 2016-02-02 05:14pm

Guys, on the first page, NecronLord provided us with two images, giving us a loadout of both normal First Order stormtroopers and their dropship. The stormtroopers normal equipment seems to consist of melee equipment, their version of binoculars, and their equivalent of magazines in case they want to reload their weapons.

The closest the dropship has to anything that could stop the transporters is the deflector shield generator, with a Main forward deflector projector attached. So, the dropship has shields, and this scenario does show that Star Trek weapons can affect and pass those shields with enough force. So, if the USS Progress uses enough ordinance in their own shuttle bay, they could blast the stormtroopers dropship. The only way they couldn't is if the dropship's hull was made of something like kelbonite, which is unlikely.

Also, looking at the stormtrooper armor, it says that the helmet has "Filtration system with external tank hook-up". Meaning that unless the stormtroopers brought oxygen tanks in addition to anesthesine gas filtration systems, the Progress will be able to stop the boarders cold by venting the shuttlebay.
Image

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-02 05:38pm

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


I wouldn't put too much faith in the database, while it's a very impressive work, I don't think it is wholly exhaustive. For instance, on 'The High Ground' the episode we had a clip of before, it quotes this:

GEORDI: Explosive charge on the main warp chamber...

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

ENGINEER: It's scrambling the sensors, Captain... I can't pinpoint it.

Transporters: the bomb couldn't be transported because the sensors couldn't pick it up, even though we could see it perfectly. Geordi had to slap his communicator onto it and then have the transporter chief lock onto the comm badge signal.


That's certainly true, but as an analysis of the whole scene, entirely omits the ability to lock on to and transport intruders in the previous scene. Now there's nothing wrong with picking negative examples, particularly as the main site is from a time when there were proponents on the other side, but it's by no means an exhaustive guide to transporter capabilities.
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 10:57pm

NecronLord wrote:
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


I wouldn't put too much faith in the database, while it's a very impressive work, I don't think it is wholly exhaustive. [...]

Especially as this database does not include all the instances where a transport was possible and thus does not explain under what circumstances respective in the presence of which materials or phenomenon a transport is not impossible.

It results in a very twisted perception. One could easily get the impression that transporters are unreliable because all the instances where transporter did work without problems are not recounted in that database.

It is as if you would look at a database with all plane crashs in history and would get the impression that flying is unsafe although in reality it is propably the safest way of transportation.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14946
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

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

Postby Batman » 2016-02-03 07:33pm

Why in Valen's name would a database meant to list the times the transporters didn't work include the ones where they did? You're basically saying 'that database of plane crashes is unfairly excluding all the instances where planes didn't crash'.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

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 » 2016-02-03 07:52pm

Note also, Watch-Man, that the database is listing quantifiable upper/lower limits for transporters as well, such as the 40,000 km range established in TNG "A Matter of Honor."
Image

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-03 09:02pm

Batman wrote:Why in Valen's name would a database meant to list the times the transporters didn't work include the ones where they did? You're basically saying 'that database of plane crashes is unfairly excluding all the instances where planes didn't crash'.

Because context matters. Lucifer's linking as a list of failures, certainly it includes that.

But as an example of why stormtroopers would be able to counter transporters? I don't see much of relevance. A great many of the examples are inapplicable in this specific scenario. It's a list of failures, yes, but he's quoting it as blanket support for transporters being all-but-useless against intruders, when we've actually had a clip demonstrating that people in the settting state they can use transporters to round up intruders.

Let's look at what the database shows, plus one example from memory. I'll pop the clear 'failure' examples into categories.

Sufficiently Hard Shove:
1. TNG Season 3, Ep# 59: "The Hunted" > Genetically engineered man pushes his way out of a transporter beam (lol) this guy's physical strength

Magic:
2. TNG Season 1, Ep# 22: "Skin of Evil" > Undefined forcefields. (Effect of a magical being)
3. TNG Season 6, Ep# 131: "Schisms" > "Hole in spacetime" creates severe nucleonic interference

Biotechnological Jamming (Which are surely designed for this!)
4. TNG Season 3, Ep# 68: "Tin Man" > Force field generated by a living starship
5. VOY Season 3, Ep# 68: "Scorpion Part I" > Bio-Electric interference generated by 8472 ship.

Jamming Technology:
6. TNG Season 2, Ep# 37: "Contagion" > Unknown Iconian Device
7. TNG Season 3, Ep# 60: "The High Ground" > Enemies with dimension-shifting devices, explosive device 'scrambles sensors'

Tractor Beam:
8. TNG Season 6, Ep# 146: "The Chase" > Tractor beam prevents transport.
9. TNG Season 7, Ep# 160: "Attached" > Tractor beam again

Stellar Radiation:
10. TNG Season 1, Ep# 23: "Symbiosis" > Stellar X-ray emissions caused by solar flares.
11. TNG Season 3, Ep# 49: "Ensigns of Command" > "Hyperonic Radiation"/"Thermi-Thorons" generated by a local pulsar; also render planets uninhabitable without medication.
12. TNG Season 6, Ep# 128: "Realm of Fear" > Ionic field (a "streamer" between binary stars) means they have to beam pad-to-pad.
13. TNG Season 6, Ep# 148: "Suspicions" > Solar radiation again.
14. TNG Season 6, Ep# 150: "Second Chances" > Stellar radiation

Storms on Planets:
15. TNG Season 3, Ep# 55: "The Enemy" > "Electromagnetic" storm on the planet interferes with sensors.
16. TNG Season 4, Ep# 83: "Final Mission" > Magnetic Flux of inhabited moon.
17. TNG Season 5, Ep# 115: "Power Play" > Electromagnetic storms again (good, repetition is good)
18. TNG Season 6, Ep# 145: "Lessons" > Ionization in the atmosphere again.

Materials/Minerals:
19. TNG Season 5, Ep# 111: "Hero Worship" > "all that" Victurium alloy.
20. TNG Season 7, Ep# 164: "Pegasus" > Miles of solid rock
21. (Added) TNG movie "Insurrection" > Kelbonite

Accidental Technological:
22. TNG Season 4, Ep# 80: "Legacy" > The infamous "Power Transformer in the way"
23. TNG Season 6, Ep# 135: "Quality of Life" > Field Ionization Effect created by damage to space station reactor.

Non-Canon
DS9 Season 1, Ep# 1: "Emissary" > 'Nucleonic Emissions' This scene from the scripts was changed and the airlocks just work, and Sisko just walks on; no problems with transporters in filmed episode.


Of these, many are environmental, many relate to stellar conditions (makes sense, if you're projecting a potentially charged beam through space). Some are just plain hilarious. I don't however, think there's grounds to say any of these things negate the ability quoted in The High Ground, to use transporters as a weapon against intruders. The First Order lander is almost certainly transporter proof as long as it keeps its shields raised, but stomtroopers are men and women with equipment who carry megawatt-range weapons, just like the guys in the example from The High Ground; their armour is better, and their weapons better, but they're fundamentally similar targets.

You could argue that blasters have higher firepower than phasers, but then, transporters managed to beam Nomad around in TOS "The Changeling" and that fucking thing packed more power output than a Constitution class (and probably a Galaxy class) into a man-sized frame:

SPOCK: Temporarily, Captain. Our shields absorbed energy equivalent to ninety of our photon torpedoes.
KIRK: Ninety?
SPOCK: I may add, the energy used repulsing this first attack reduced our shielding power twenty percent.


So I'm pretty sure that beaming high-energy equipment like blasters around should not be a problem based on their power output alone.

Things like the operational range, or environmental limits of transporters are useful to know in other scenarios, but the boarding scenario here is very similar to the one in The High Ground, no?
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
Agent Sorchus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2008-08-16 09:01pm
Contact:

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

Postby Agent Sorchus » 2016-02-04 01:01am

All this arguing over transporters. Bah, while it can be shown that starfleet has troubles beaming up due to X or Y acts of nature, it is notable that their are only rare cases of transporters having any sort of anti-intruder activity that is even attempted let alone succeeds. On the other hand it is important to notice it at least and consider it.

There are tactics that stormtroopers can take to minimize the risks from transporters, namely rapid assault (since internal sensors take some time to start tracking targets) and hostage taking. Hostage taking because it is seemingly very hard for transporter operators to isolate two people in close proximity, so human sheilds double as a dis-insentive to transporter shenanigans. Unfortunatly for the first order it is pretty clear that their dropships are terribly armed, being no more than a heavy infantry weapon. It is quite likely that they will be able to cause no real internal damage to a Galaxy class, though they make it easier to seize the landing bay.

Now as for the actual targets of my few stormtroopers, I think the weakest part of a Galaxy class is the Saucer separation. Get the stormtroopers in place to blow the docking clamps, and inform the captain that you are prepared risk a high warp separation unless he agrees to unconditional surrender. Oh and do go through with it if he thinks you are bluffing, because while risky it would strand the Saucer and maincomputer in First Order space.

As for the Federation side of this, I think I would recognize that the stormtroopers aren't interested in the transporters. Afterall they have access to a shuttlebay full of transporter enabled ships. No they want the crew and myself as trophies, a barbaric practice. It might also be instructive to learn how ferocious these janisaries are, afterall they are a staple of any potential federation first order conflict. Since I have a duty to my ship and crew, only security (or klingon volunteers) should attempt primary resistance. Also I would have to use my position as captain as bait, after locking the ships computer down on a timer that should stop soon after ariving in republic space.

I fully expect to lose many redshirt to the stormtroopers, but hope that we can keep them out of any primary system. If I am aware of a stormtrooper squad being 10 people I would order security to stay in double teams, attacking from behind locked doors and from concealed positions using either the jefferies tube or the transporter system to obtain suprise upon the storm troopers. Afterall while the idea of beaming up intruders is controversial the use of beaming crew around the ship is less so. Hell beam to the shuttles in the bay to try and out manuever the stormtroopers since that would be a pad to pad trasport rather then site to site or pad to site.
the engines cannae take any more cap'n
warp 9 to shroomland ~Dalton

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

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

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-04 01:23am

Batman wrote:Why in Valen's name would a database meant to list the times the transporters didn't work include the ones where they did? You're basically saying 'that database of plane crashes is unfairly excluding all the instances where planes didn't crash'.

As the database is not supposed to only list the times the transporters didn't work.

          Mike Wong wrote:
          Canon Database


          On this page, I hope to provide a valuable source of reference material for Star Wars and Star Trek fans who are tired of seeing endless on-line rehashes of technical manuals or RPG stats in lieu of references to the orginal source material. [...]

          There are a few important things to keep in mind before perusing this database:

          1. This is not strictly a list of quotes or episodes synopses. Anyone can simply collate raw data. The point of this "database" is to present analyses and ramifications of events, not to simply list those events. [...]

            [...]

All the events in which the transorters worked without problems are reference material too.

Without considering all the events in which the transporters worked without problems, you can not really analyse the abilities of the transporters.

And thus it gets nearly impossible to extrapolate from that list what a transporter could do in certain circumstances that are not equal to the circumstances in this database.

There are many events where a transporter was used to beam from a ship aboard of another ship - not using the transporter of the ship they beamed into. But we know that the hull, the bulkhead and the interior of ships were composed of materials as duranium, an extremely strong metallic substance; Tritanium, that is supposed to be 21.4 times as hard as diamond; tetraburnium, that allowed a ship build with it to enter the atmosphere of a class 6 gas giant; monotanium, against that USS Voyager's weapons were relatively ineffective or Trititanium, that could block the sensor probes of a Constitution-class starship.

That are important information if one considers if the armour of a Stormtrooper could prevent beaming him. The database shows us that there are materials that disturb the transporter. But it does not show us all the materials that do not disturb the transporter. And as we do not know how Stormtrooper armour is composed, we can not simply claim that it would prevent transportation.

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

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

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-04 01:49am

Agent Sorchus wrote:All this arguing over transporters. Bah, while it can be shown that starfleet has troubles beaming up due to X or Y acts of nature, it is notable that their are only rare cases of transporters having any sort of anti-intruder activity that is even attempted let alone succeeds. On the other hand it is important to notice it at least and consider it. [...]

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?

Agent Sorchus wrote:[...] There are tactics that stormtroopers can take to minimize the risks from transporters, namely rapid assault (since internal sensors take some time to start tracking targets) [...]

Please provide evidence for your claim that "internal sensors take some time to start tracking targets".

Agent Sorchus wrote:[...] and hostage taking. Hostage taking because it is seemingly very hard for transporter operators to isolate two people in close proximity, so human sheilds double as a dis-insentive to transporter shenanigans. [...]

Please provide evidence for your claim that it is seemingly very hard for transporter operators to isolate two people in close proximity.

Agent Sorchus wrote:[...] Unfortunatly for the first order it is pretty clear that their dropships are terribly armed, being no more than a heavy infantry weapon. It is quite likely that they will be able to cause no real internal damage to a Galaxy class, though they make it easier to seize the landing bay. [...]

Please provide evidence for your claim that dropships are terribly armed and would not be able to cause real internal damage to a Galaxy class.

Agent Sorchus wrote:[...] Now as for the actual targets of my few stormtroopers, I think the weakest part of a Galaxy class is the Saucer separation. [...]

What do you mean with "the weakest part of a Galaxy class"?

Please provide evidence for your claim that the weakest part of a Galaxy class is the Saucer separation.

Agent Sorchus wrote:[...] Get the stormtroopers in place to blow the docking clamps, and inform the captain that you are prepared risk a high warp separation unless he agrees to unconditional surrender. Oh and do go through with it if he thinks you are bluffing, because while risky it would strand the Saucer and maincomputer in First Order space. [...]

Please provide evidence for your claim that this would be possible, that you only have to blow the docking clamps and the ship - while in high warp, the engine section pushing the saucer section - would separate.

Please provide evidence that it is likely that even if this would work, the Captain would agree to unconditional surrender.

When the Bynars commandeered the Enterprise in the TNG episode "11001001", the first thing Picard and Riker did was to activate the auto-destruction. When Ferengi boarded the Enterprise in the TNG episode "Rascals", the first thing Riker did was to lock out the computer's command functions. When the Kazon boarded the Voyager in the VOY episodes "Basics", Janeway wanted to activate the auto-destruct sequence. This was even expected from Seska and prevented by disabling the ship's power systems and the primary computer core.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-04 07:44pm

Agent Sorchus wrote:There are tactics that stormtroopers can take to minimize the risks from transporters, namely rapid assault (since internal sensors take some time to start tracking targets) and hostage taking. Hostage taking because it is seemingly very hard for transporter operators to isolate two people in close proximity, so human sheilds double as a dis-insentive to transporter shenanigans.
But we've seen a transporter used to solve a hostage situation successfully. In TOS Day of the Dove, the Enterprise is able to beam up a group of Klingons and the command crew who're being held captives, materialize the Enterprise crew first, then capture the Klingons. They also say they could just not reintegrate the Klingons.
KIRK: Kirk to Enterprise. Mister Spock.
SPOCK [OC]: Here, Captain.
KIRK: Mister Spock, we have guests. Adjust transporter to wide field. Beam up everyone in the target area. (and presses a button)

[Bridge]

(An amber light flashes by the Captain's chair.)
SPOCK: Understood, Captain. Transporter room.
(The group is beamed up, and the weird light follows.)

[Transporter room]

(Just the four Federation people materialise on the pads.)
KIRK: Full security, Johnson, on the double.
(The security guard runs off, Spock enters.)
KIRK: Good work, Spock.
MCCOY: What happened?
SPOCK: Our landing party is intact, Doctor.
SCOTT: All others suspended in transit. Who are the guests, by the way?
KIRK: Klingons.
SCOTT: Well, they're right in here.
KIRK: Johnson?
JOHNSON: Security on the way, sir.
CHEKOV: Captain, leave them where they are. Non-existence. That's so many less Klingon monsters in the galaxy.
(Two more security guards arrive.)
KIRK: Bring them in.
(The Klingons materialise, and are quickly disarmed.)
JOHNSON: Move 'em out. Move!
KANG: Liar!
KIRK: I said no tricks after we reach the ship. You're a prisoner of the Federation of Planets against which you may or may not have committed an act of war.


At the very least they can beam people carrying communicators out and sort them from others, they can also integrate people and not materialize their weapons, as shown in DS9 'To the Death' on the Jem'hadar or disable the weapon as shown in in TNG The Hunted.

Now as for the actual targets of my few stormtroopers, I think the weakest part of a Galaxy class is the Saucer separation. Get the stormtroopers in place to blow the docking clamps, and inform the captain that you are prepared risk a high warp separation unless he agrees to unconditional surrender. Oh and do go through with it if he thinks you are bluffing, because while risky it would strand the Saucer and maincomputer in First Order space.


Sure, do you take the turbolifts, stairs, (there's a stairwell in the center of the saucer) jefferies tubes or try something else? The clamps are a fairly substantial piece of kit, too, their apparatus in the saucer section spans decks 9-12, so you need to get down five decks and then disable a large amount of clamping equipment on four decks.

While doing this you need to bypass force-fields and avoid getting shot.
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
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14946
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

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

Postby Batman » 2016-02-04 09:11pm

Please provide evidence for your claim that dropships are terribly armed and would not be able to cause real internal damage to a Galaxy class.

The TFA ICS gives the dropship one double-barreled infantry scale blaster cannon and I don't recall anything from the movie contradicting this. They could make a mess of the shuttlebay but that's about it.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 187
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

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

Postby DarthPooky » 2016-02-05 02:01am

The post that started the threa i forget what its called said that both sides know each others capabilities so i would assume the first order knowing there going up agenst a Federation star ship would bring along equipment to stop tranceporters. Feel free to point out any flaws in my theory.

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

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

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-05 02:44am

Batman wrote:
Please provide evidence for your claim that dropships are terribly armed and would not be able to cause real internal damage to a Galaxy class.

The TFA ICS gives the dropship one double-barreled infantry scale blaster cannon and I don't recall anything from the movie contradicting this. They could make a mess of the shuttlebay but that's about it.

As I do not have the TFA ICS, could you please provide evidence by posting a scan of the relevant side.

And what are the specs of this "double-barreled infantry scale blaster cannon"?

I'm amazed that it is not supposed to be strong enough to destroy a Galaxy class ship with one shot - especially as, because the dropship is already inside the shuttle bay, there are no shields protecting the galaxy class ship against such a shot. Anyway, a few shots of this cannon in every direction should be enough to blast through all the bulkheads and leave the hull like a swiss cheese, resulting in a complete decompression of the ship and death of the whole Starfleet crew while the Stormtroopers are still safe and sound in their dropship.

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

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

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2016-02-05 02:45am

DarthPooky wrote:The post that started the threa i forget what its called said that both sides know each others capabilities so i would assume the first order knowing there going up agenst a Federation star ship would bring along equipment to stop tranceporters. Feel free to point out any flaws in my theory.

Knowing that there are transporters and what they can do does not mean to know how they work and how you could prevent unwanted transportations.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-05 10:15am

When writing the original post I said that they couldn't beam intruders site to site (though they could beam them) on board too, and they couldn't dial the gravity up. Now that I have seen the High Ground I'd not include that transporter provision, and of course alt-Archer does use the gravity plates on the (Constitution class) Defiant to suppress a Gorn too.

WATCH-MAN wrote:As I do not have the TFA ICS, could you please provide evidence by posting a scan of the relevant side.

And what are the specs of this "double-barreled infantry scale blaster cannon"?

I'm amazed that it is not supposed to be strong enough to destroy a Galaxy class ship with one shot - especially as, because the dropship is already inside the shuttle bay, there are no shields protecting the galaxy class ship against such a shot. Anyway, a few shots of this cannon in every direction should be enough to blast through all the bulkheads and leave the hull like a swiss cheese, resulting in a complete decompression of the ship and death of the whole Starfleet crew while the Stormtroopers are still safe and sound in their dropship.



The OP contains a link to large scale pictures from the Visual Dictionary and the ICS of the ICS plate of the drop ship in the 'resources' section. I'm not convinced there's any evidence with respect to firepower there.

As for blowing open the hull; we've seen hull breaches on starfleet ships before, the fields come up fairly quick; people do get sucked out, but the force-fields come on quite quickly.
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
SilverDragonRed
Padawan Learner
Posts: 217
Joined: 2014-04-28 08:38am

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

Postby SilverDragonRed » 2016-02-05 10:39am

NecronLord wrote:
Agent Sorchus wrote:There are tactics that stormtroopers can take to minimize the risks from transporters, namely rapid assault (since internal sensors take some time to start tracking targets) and hostage taking. Hostage taking because it is seemingly very hard for transporter operators to isolate two people in close proximity, so human sheilds double as a dis-insentive to transporter shenanigans.
But we've seen a transporter used to solve a hostage situation successfully. In TOS Day of the Dove, the Enterprise is able to beam up a group of Klingons and the command crew who're being held captives, materialize the Enterprise crew first, then capture the Klingons. They also say they could just not reintegrate the Klingons.

At the very least they can beam people carrying communicators out and sort them from others, they can also integrate people and not materialize their weapons, as shown in DS9 'To the Death' on the Jem'hadar or disable the weapon as shown in in TNG The Hunted.


Seeing as how the entire exercise of boarding actions is rendered futile (and thus moot), I'll go for calling in a FOdestroyer to blast the ship apart. Unless the FOtroopers have some piece of standard equipment that they can bring along or the shuttle is capable of making a big enough jamming screen for the footsloggers to accomplish their mission, I don't see a way to prevent the Starfleet vessel from achieving theirs.
Ah yes, the "Alpha Legion". I thought we had dismissed such claims.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-05 12:06pm

Calling the Palpatine just results in your (stormtrooper O-3) Captain simply telling you that if they could shoot the Progress, they'd be mag-pulsing it already to shut its systems down and sending more troops. The Progress is already at FTL and the Palpatine cannot fire on it. The ship is going to make it to the New Republic fleet base if you don't do something. She then curses you out in Basic, Huttese and amazingly, Wookie.

You can however, presume that the transporters are out of play and describe what you'd do going forward from there if you like.
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 » 2016-02-05 02:09pm

NecronLord wrote:When writing the original post I said that they couldn't beam intruders site to site (though they could beam them) on board too, and they couldn't dial the gravity up. Now that I have seen the High Ground I'd not include that transporter provision, and of course alt-Archer does use the gravity plates on the (Constitution class) Defiant to suppress a Gorn too.

WATCH-MAN wrote:As I do not have the TFA ICS, could you please provide evidence by posting a scan of the relevant side.

And what are the specs of this "double-barreled infantry scale blaster cannon"?

I'm amazed that it is not supposed to be strong enough to destroy a Galaxy class ship with one shot - especially as, because the dropship is already inside the shuttle bay, there are no shields protecting the galaxy class ship against such a shot. Anyway, a few shots of this cannon in every direction should be enough to blast through all the bulkheads and leave the hull like a swiss cheese, resulting in a complete decompression of the ship and death of the whole Starfleet crew while the Stormtroopers are still safe and sound in their dropship.



The OP contains a link to large scale pictures from the Visual Dictionary and the ICS of the ICS plate of the drop ship in the 'resources' section. I'm not convinced there's any evidence with respect to firepower there.

Thank you.

This Sienar-Jaemus F 20 antipersonnel blaster cannon seems to be bigger than the hand-held blasters of the Stormtroopers. It seems plausible to assume that it has an accordingly higher power output.

NecronLord wrote:As for blowing open the hull; we've seen hull breaches on starfleet ships before, the fields come up fairly quick; people do get sucked out, but the force-fields come on quite quickly.

Simply destroy the power grid and / or force field generators too.

User avatar
SilverDragonRed
Padawan Learner
Posts: 217
Joined: 2014-04-28 08:38am

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

Postby SilverDragonRed » 2016-02-05 02:41pm

With transporters offline, I send a fire team with a flamer out in a random direction. The other fifteen are sent immediately to Engineering. Any wall-mounted interface get shot along the way.

The lone fire team is to run interference against security teams. Should the fight in Engineering go well, contact is made with the bridge. Either they surrender or the warp core gets shot.
Ah yes, the "Alpha Legion". I thought we had dismissed such claims.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-05 04:49pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:Thank you.

This Sienar-Jaemus F 20 antipersonnel blaster cannon seems to be bigger than the hand-held blasters of the Stormtroopers. It seems plausible to assume that it has an accordingly higher power output.
That seems obvious, but how much higher?

AotC ICS rates anti-personnel blasters on AT-TEs and LAATs as 5*109 J/shot. That's 5 gigajoules, a very impressive amount of energy, but is it enough to cripple a Galaxy class from where it is? Quark trys to sell a guy a heavy handheld weapon in DS9 and that can penetrate shields in the 4.6 gigajoule range, so that kind of firepower is hardly unprecedented in the setting. Sure you can wreck most of the deck you're on, and suppress everything approaching your lander, but in three hours the New Republic marines land in force and kick the crap out of you unless you stop the Progress.

Simply destroy the power grid and / or force field generators too.

How would they know where to shoot to do that? Do we know that the shields are generated locally and not in the heart of the ship somewhere?

SilverDragonRed wrote:With transporters offline, I send a fire team with a flamer out in a random direction. The other fifteen are sent immediately to Engineering. Any wall-mounted interface get shot along the way.

The lone fire team is to run interference against security teams. Should the fight in Engineering go well, contact is made with the bridge. Either they surrender or the warp core gets shot.

Starfleet have shown multiple times that they're willing to blow up a ship if necessary; the First Orders' captains aren't willing to die; are you sure your men will go through with that? Here's an example:



Janeway is quite a lot more prepared to die for the mission than Phasma is. We see similar behaviour from the other Captains back to Kirk.
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
SilverDragonRed
Padawan Learner
Posts: 217
Joined: 2014-04-28 08:38am

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

Postby SilverDragonRed » 2016-02-05 05:12pm

If my men don't want to go through with it, they have 60 seconds to evac the ship. Since I'm in command of the squad, I'll shoot the core myself if the Cpt. doesn't surrender.
Ah yes, the "Alpha Legion". I thought we had dismissed such claims.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-05 05:18pm

SilverDragonRed wrote:If my men don't want to go through with it, they have 60 seconds to evac the ship. Since I'm in command of the squad, I'll shoot the core myself if the Cpt. doesn't surrender.


Doing so fails your mission, as the computer core is not taken intact. Your mission is to capture, not destroy the ship. The Palpatine could have done that in one shot.

Bonus question; what route do you take to engineering? You need to get into the turbolift shafts to cross over from saucer to engineering, or a single passageway.
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: 8527
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

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

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-05 06:25pm

Hmmm...if the shuttle bay doors are open I would point the dropship's turret gun at one of the nacelles and open fire. Since this is a refit Galaxy and it's a relatively light weapon, it shouldn't cause enough damage to make the ship explode, but it will hopefully cause enough damage to force the ship out of warp, whether through either actual damage or by concerned Starfleet engineers.

The stormtroopers form a defensive position around said dropship which also turns any ECM gear it has up to maximum, just to be sure.
"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
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26823
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

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

Postby NecronLord » 2016-02-05 06:49pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Hmmm...if the shuttle bay doors are open I would point the dropship's turret gun at one of the nacelles and open fire. Since this is a refit Galaxy and it's a relatively light weapon, it shouldn't cause enough damage to make the ship explode, but it will hopefully cause enough damage to force the ship out of warp, whether through either actual damage or by concerned Starfleet engineers.

The stormtroopers form a defensive position around said dropship which also turns any ECM gear it has up to maximum, just to be sure.

There is a shield up over the door at the minute, so you'd need to work out a way to drop it.
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: 8527
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

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

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-02-05 08:25pm

Ah nuts. Hmm...in that case I think my might form a defensive position in the shuttle bay and wait for the security officers to come to me. Keep the stormtroopers inside the ship and let the turret gun cut down attacking Starfleet personnel. Once a majority of the best armed and trained crew have been eliminated, I send out both my squads to engineering to kill or capture as many engineers as possible and force them to drop us to sublight speeds under threat of destroying the ship.

Alternately, keep the troopers inside the ship and use the turret gun to blast away the edges of the bay doors (as that's where the shield projectors are likely to be) then move us out, keeping close to the hull to stay within the warp field and out of phaser firing arcs, then repeat my original plan of firing on the nacelles. If possible, I will clamp the dropship to the hull to ensure we stay attached when the ship drops out of warp. Once at sublight I turn the guns on the impulse engines to cause as much damage as possible and disable the ship.
"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.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests