View Single Post
Old September 8 2013, 04:12 PM   #19
Re: Yesterday's Enterprise: How is the Federation Losing So Badly?

I'm going to start back again with numbers.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Second, US Navy Force levels between the Cold War and modern USN aren't particularly helpful when you look at the composition of the ships employed.
To me it's more a numbers game. If we kept up the same number of ships from the Cold War and continued to upgrade them, we'd have more capable ships today. Instead we have far fewer ships and that means we're less able to absorb losses if we were to be involved in a war.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of Cuban Missile Crisis era frigates and destroyers, or cruisers for that matter.
Ah but I'm not talking about old vs new. I'm talking about numbers of ships. (And to your argument, "A modern DDG could wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships" but a squadron of modern DDGs will wipe the floor with a squadron of older ships.)

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
In Starfleet terms it might mean that after the Khitomer Accords, Starfleet demobilized a significant portion of its less useful/flexible ships in favor of ramping up construction of more capable and flexible cruisers. This would coincide with a huge building program of Excelsior and Miranda class ships filling in for all the FASA and FJ auxiliaries and ships of dubious utility.
A significant portion being mothballed could mean leaving behind a majority of ships not optimized for combat stuck being used for wartime needs during the war in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Also re: Rascals, we know the scenes used for that episode were reuses of the Klingon K'vorts attacking the Enterprise-D in Yesterday's Enterprise, so perhaps those were the very big warship type BoPs retrofitted with more advanced weaponry. Combined with the fact that the klingons are ostensibly allies, and they were in the middle of a delicate rescue operation I'd imagine it's not really Riker's fault that they were caught flatfooted.
My assumption has always been those BOPs had modern weaponry. The problem is that Riker was not caught flatfooted. If you watch the episode, he takes an inexplicably long time to order the ship to return fire and his combat performance was underwhelming in that battle.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
We know at least that Riker's presence (and tactical acumen?) were considered so vital by Q that he claims no William Riker would have led to no Federation after Wolf 359,
I think Riker's required presence was more from his unconventional thinking that lead to decisions that helped to stop the Borg. That's handy when it's not a conventional war but his conventional fighting record isn't so good.

edit: Although we do see in "Parallels" where there was an E-D and a scraggly William Riker and the Borg had won. So Q might not have been 100% right.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
and he seemed to have no trouble outmaneuvering the So'na. (The latter granted after a bunch of years of war)
The battle with the So'na and to the same extent with the Ferengi BOPs resulted in a badly damaged Enterprise requiring him to resort to unconventional tactics to survive. I'd argue that if he was a better combat captain his wins would've came earlier and less damage to his ship.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Further in hand to hand combat Starfleet officers seemed more than capable of holding their own against Klingons circa 2370 (Way of the Warrior), so I don't think the "they let their military training lapse" thing really works as a reason.
"Way of the Warrior" came a couple of years after "Peak Performance" which would indicate Starfleet recognizing their lack of combat readiness and attempting to improve upon it through additional training. It would make sense that by "Way of the Warrior" we should see some competent Starfleet officers in hand-to-hand combat.

But let's go back to "Yesterday's Enterprise." I found wartime Picard's combat curiously bad as well. He didn't attempt to reduce the number of enemy ships prior to them closing to point-blank range. He spent alot of time giving directional orders when he should've just ordered "phasers and torpedoes, continuous fire". Compare that to fire everything and keep firing until you're empty Picard in "Nemesis". To me it points to a different training experience (or lack of) for the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Picard.

Now back to longevity.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
Starting with the longevity.

We know that humans aren't exactly the longest lived members of the Federation by a long chalk, with several species that live substantially longer lives. Vulcans at least live into their third century if they don't get sick with odd strange illnesses, and there's a bunch of other species that have longer lifespans. For that matter it's evidently not at all extraordinary for human Starfleet officers to be in service as centenarians. I don't think it's at all likely for them to have much trouble coming up with trained warriors, especially when there's several Starfleet member planets with strong military traditions like the Andorians.
You make good points with the Vulcans and Andorians but did you consider that they would only makeup a small portion of Starfleet? A low percentage of experienced, combat-oriented crews for Starfleet vs the entire combat-oriented Klingon crews of the Klingon navy.

Although there are references to the Tzenkathi and Cardassian conflicts, they just don't seem to have motivated Starfleet like "Q Who?" did or as Picard put it, "Well, perhaps what we most needed was a kick in our complacency, to prepare us ready for what lies ahead."

I don't think you can discount numbers and experience and that can go a long way in explaining why Starfleet was losing so badly in "Yesterday's Enterprise", IMHO.

Last edited by blssdwlf; September 8 2013 at 04:30 PM.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote