Disruptors or Phasers, pick your poison.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:55pm

Of course Kirk is tactically inept. He fucking LEFT HIS SHIELDS DOWN IN DEFIANCE OF REGULATIONS WHEN APPROACHED TO POINT-BLANK RANGE BY A SHIP THAT REFUSED TO IDENTIFY ITSELF AND PRODUCED A KNOWN FALSE EXCUSE FOR NOT DOING SO! Apologies to all the Kirk fans out there, but come on, he embarrassed himself in ST2. He was just lucky that his opponent was apparently using tactics adapted from Admiral Nelson.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:56pm

Stravo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The Enterprise is easily within the Reliant's aft torpedo launcher cone of fire in that picture, dumb-ass.
Which is why his continual argument on this point is giving me a headache. what IS the point??

I'm trying to find an alternative explaination to "Kirk was tactically inept and didn't consider approaching Reliant from the top or the bottom after being informed Khan was 3D impared."

Brian

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course Kirk is tactically inept. He fucking LEFT HIS SHIELDS DOWN IN DEFIANCE OF REGULATIONS WHEN APPROACHED TO POINT-BLANK RANGE BY A SHIP THAT REFUSED TO IDENTIFY ITSELF AND PRODUCED A KNOWN FALSE EXCUSE FOR NOT DOING SO! Apologies to all the Kirk fans out there, but come on, he embarrassed himself in ST2. He was just lucky that his opponent was apparently using tactics adapted from Admiral Nelson.

Dammit Kirk is stupid.

No need to apologize. Kirk is lightyears ahead of the Picards and Janeways. Maybe Sisko is better, but he has experience in an actual war.

<edit> Actually now to think of it, Picard created the "Picard Maneuver" and Janeway found ways to defeat the Borg and tricked the Borg Queen. Dammit, Kirk is tactically inept, and possibly the most tactically inept Trek Captain out there. Holy shit. </edit>

Brian

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 03:59pm

brianeyci wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The Enterprise is easily within the Reliant's aft torpedo launcher cone of fire in that picture, dumb-ass.
Which is why his continual argument on this point is giving me a headache. what IS the point??
I'm trying to find an alternative explaination to "Kirk was tactically inept and didn't consider approaching Reliant from the top or the bottom after being informed Khan was 3D impared."

Brian

Perhaps because the best way to come up on the Reliant's rear by Kirk's placement of the Enterprise was to simply rise? The ship was ordered to negative y axis 2,000 meters. The Enterprise picks up the Reliant's wake as it passes overhead. All Sulu has to do is hit positive y axis 2000 meters and they are now aligned with the rear of the Reliant.

Any other angle of approach requires the Enterprise to be out of position to pick up the Reliant's wake when it passes. Remember Kahn is simply moving back and forth on the same plane of engagement. The least amount of energy and complication is to simply lay and wait for it to pass.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 04:03pm

Stravo wrote:Perhaps because the best way to come up on the Reliant's rear by Kirk's placement of the Enterprise was to simply rise? The ship was ordered to negative y axis 2,000 meters. The Enterprise picks up the Reliant's wake as it passes overhead. All Sulu has to do is hit positive y axis 2000 meters and they are now aligned with the rear of the Reliant.

Any other angle of approach requires the Enterprise to be out of position to pick up the Reliant's wake when it passes. Remember Kahn is simply moving back and forth on the same plane of engagement. The least amount of energy and complication is to simply lay and wait for it to pass.

I love you. So Kirk might have a reason after all.

But we don't hear something like "We've locked onto their wake, Z plus ten thousand meters"... it could have happened though.

Brian

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 04:05pm

Problem is not only doesn't anybody mention a wake, but we see no such thing. Given the easy visibility of the nebula any turbulences produced ought to be clearly visible.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 04:10pm

Batman wrote:Problem is not only doesn't anybody mention a wake, but we see no such thing. Given the easy visibility of the nebula any turbulences produced ought to be clearly visible.

Spock mentions a power surge off the port bow. "Could be an Impulse turn." At one point in the battle while scanning. So they could pick up some sort of evidence of the ship's passage.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 04:11pm

Batman wrote:Problem is not only doesn't anybody mention a wake, but we see no such thing. Given the easy visibility of the nebula any turbulences produced ought to be clearly visible.

Maybe maybe not. They could be locking onto the engine emissions somehow -- but we know that requires specialized sensor devices from ST:VI. So maybe the wake is invisible.

Anyway Stravo's explaination is good enough for me, I'm satisfied.

Brian

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 04:14pm

Stravo wrote:
Batman wrote:Problem is not only doesn't anybody mention a wake, but we see no such thing. Given the easy visibility of the nebula any turbulences produced ought to be clearly visible.
Spock mentions a power surge off the port bow. "Could be an Impulse turn." At one point in the battle while scanning. So they could pick up some sort of evidence of the ship's passage.

They MUST pick up some sort of evidene, else they wouldn't have a clue on when to rise in the first place. I just doubt it was a wake and they'd therefor have to stay in it (which they wouldn't have been BTW, they would be BELOW it).

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 04:16pm

brianeyci wrote: Anyway Stravo's explaination is good enough for me, I'm satisfied.
Brian

Anything but admit that Kirk is actually stupid, just not to the same extent as his fellow Starfleet captain, eh?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 04:47pm

If they can tell that it just passed above them, they can use thrusters to rotate the ship to face upwards and approach that way, which would not only put them outside its cone of torpedo fire but also make it much easier for them to blow the fuck out of it from longer range thanks to a much larger target profile. Sorry, Kirk is still a lousy tactician.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 04:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:If they can tell that it just passed above them, they can use thrusters to rotate the ship to face upwards...

Actually this brings up another question. Is the Enterprise actually able to do this? I know it sounds silly, but we always see the Enterprise on a certain axis. Is it possible that the maneuvering thrusters are oriented so that the Enterprise can only go up and down without changing orientation? Do we ever see visual evidence of the Enterprise turning on its Z axis?

Brian

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-01 05:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:If they can tell that it just passed above them, they can use thrusters to rotate the ship to face upwards and approach that way, which would not only put them outside its cone of torpedo fire but also make it much easier for them to blow the fuck out of it from longer range thanks to a much larger target profile. Sorry, Kirk is still a lousy tactician.

All that time behind the desk...

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-01 05:03pm

Kirk was rusty. He got too complacent sitting behind a desk in paradise, to paraphrase Sisko. He admits it to. "We got caught with our briches down." He fucked up and admitted it.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 05:08pm

brianeyci wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If they can tell that it just passed above them, they can use thrusters to rotate the ship to face upwards...
Actually this brings up another question. Is the Enterprise actually able to do this? I know it sounds silly, but we always see the Enterprise on a certain axis. Is it possible that the maneuvering thrusters are oriented so that the Enterprise can only go up and down without changing orientation? Do we ever see visual evidence of the Enterprise turning on its Z axis?

You're kidding, right?
Unless every last destination ever visited by the Enterpise just happens to be aligned so the ship wan't have to pitch to get to it that's physically impossible.
The galaxy isn't 2-dimensional you know.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 05:19pm

Batman wrote:You're kidding, right?
Unless every last destination ever visited by the Enterpise just happens to be aligned so the ship wan't have to pitch to get to it that's physically impossible.
The galaxy isn't 2-dimensional you know.

You don't have to pitch if you are able to move on the Z-Axis without reorienting yourself. For example, the Enterprise moved downwards in TWOK without pitching.

For example rather than turning to go to something off your plane by 10000 meters, your ship could remain in the same pitch and go up and then straight or fire both thrusters at once going diagonally.

Brian

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 05:34pm

brianeyci wrote: You don't have to pitch if you are able to move on the Z-Axis without reorienting yourself. For example, the Enterprise moved downwards in TWOK without pitching.

Yes, that makes so much sense. The Enterprise gets called to an emergency on Delta Brezegeti 7. The Warp over and then spend the next 20 million years moving downwards on thrusters because it happens to be 2 lightyears below Enterprise. Oh please.

For example rather than turning to go to something off your plane by 10000 meters, your ship could remain in the same pitch and go up and then straight or fire both thrusters at once going diagonally.

And spend several eternities in doing so if the distance happens to be what actually occurs on an interstellar scale.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 05:44pm

Batman wrote:
Yes, that makes so much sense. The Enterprise gets called to an emergency on Delta Brezegeti 7. The Warp over and then spend the next 20 million years moving downwards on thrusters because it happens to be 2 lightyears below Enterprise. Oh please.

I actually didn't think of warp. Warp could allow them to alter course the same way. Maybe you could move diagonally while in warp without pitching.

We've only seen those warp trails in a straight direction though. But then again, I don't think we've seen the Enteprise pitch before.

And spend several eternities in doing so if the distance happens to be what actually occurs on an interstellar scale.

Well you might be able to warp without pitching.

But we've never seen the Enterprise warp off-axis. So what is better, a ship that can't pitch but can warp off-axis, or a ship that can pitch and only warps straight ahead?

(edited to fix quote)

Brian

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 05:49pm

brianeyci wrote:Well you might be able to warp without pitching.

But we've never seen the Enterprise warp off-axis. So what is better, a ship that can't pitch but can warp off-axis, or a ship that can pitch and only warps straight ahead?

(edited to fix quote)

Brian

Uh....how about a ship that can pitch both at warp and sublight?? Are you seriously suggesting that the Enterprise cannot pitch while at Warp? How many episodes have we seen the Enterprise manuever during warp in TOS? And the ships can also warp off axis. Check out the Enterprise in ST:III as the Excelsior closes in. It warps up and out. If it were warping straight ahead it would have warped into the camera.

Why would your immediate assumption be something so ludicrous as a ship that cannot manuever in basic newtonian physics as opposed to a man that made some tactical errors in combat? Which is more reasonable?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 06:02pm

Stravo wrote:Which is more reasonable?

A ship that can pitch during warp and sublight.

Brian