RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,895
Posts: 5,330,489
Members: 24,555
Currently online: 580
Newest member: berlyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 1 2012, 02:41 PM   #31
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Wasn't the large one supposed to be 5 km on each side? I remember Enterprise blowing massive holes in it. Beating any Borg, even the small cube is pretty impressive though
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2012, 06:59 PM   #32
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

The Borg are a formidable foe, taking down even something really small like a sphere is a good job.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2012, 10:52 PM   #33
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Deks wrote: View Post
If SF designed the Intrepid class to be a downsized Galaxy class,
I'm pretty sure it wasn't seeing as I hear that was kind of part of Voyager's premise and all

Where do people even get the idea that the Intrepid was supposed to be a mini-Galaxy, the only ship I would think would remotely qualify as a downsized Galaxy would be the Soverign-class.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Borg are a formidable foe, taking down even something really small like a sphere is a good job.
So I guess the Soverign is more badass for taking a sphere out with only 4 or 5 torpedoes
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1 2012, 11:01 PM   #34
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Many of that sphere's systems were off-line owing to the time travel.


T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 02:30 AM   #35
RB_Kandy
Commander
 
RB_Kandy's Avatar
 
Location: RB_Kandy
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

T'Girl wrote: View Post
RB_Kandy wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote:
You mean "the baby cube?"
That was no "baby cube", here's a screen cap http://i45.tinypic.com/2ic7a55.jpg


From this image, if the Voyager is even with the nearest face, and given that the ship is 132 metres across, that makes the cube's face about 700 metres square. Just 60 metres more than the Enterprise D's total length.

If the Voyager is pass the cube, then the cube is smaller than 700 metres. The further away the Voyager is in this image, the smaller the cube.

The baby "tactical" cube is much smaller than the large "strategic" cube that the Enterprise encountered. Each face of that larger cube was multiple times the length of the Enterprise.

These articles make it clear that the tactical cube was an incredibly powerful ship, which had greater firepower than a standard borg cube
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Borg_tactical_cube

And from the star trek online wiki
http://www.stowiki.org/Tactical_Cube
RB_Kandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 02:50 AM   #36
Captain McBain
Captain
 
Location: Being congratulated on the bridge of the Enterprise after making captain
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

EmperorTiberius wrote: View Post
Wasn't the large one supposed to be 5 km on each side? I remember Enterprise blowing massive holes in it. Beating any Borg, even the small cube is pretty impressive though
The large Borg Cube has a size of 28 cubic kilometers, making it over 3 kilometers on each side.
Captain McBain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 03:00 AM   #37
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

RB_Kandy wrote: View Post
These articles make it clear that the tactical cube was an incredibly powerful ship, which had greater firepower than a standard borg cube
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Borg_tactical_cube
Okay.

First, memory-beta concerns the Star Trek novels, none of which are canon. All information on Borg cubes that came from a novel is also not canon.

Second, memory-beta claims that a baby "tactical" cube is 3,040 metres. You yourself posted a link to a image of Voyager (132 metres max width) adjacent to a baby cube. How can you reconcile the 3,040 metre figure, with the linked image?

And from the star trek online wiki . http://www.stowiki.org/Tactical_Cube
Star Trek Online is a internet fansite, they can make up anything they want to play their little wargames. It's all fan fiction, some of it is interesting, but non-canon.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 03:21 AM   #38
RB_Kandy
Commander
 
RB_Kandy's Avatar
 
Location: RB_Kandy
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

T'Girl wrote: View Post
RB_Kandy wrote: View Post
These articles make it clear that the tactical cube was an incredibly powerful ship, which had greater firepower than a standard borg cube
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Borg_tactical_cube
Okay.

First, memory-beta concerns the Star Trek novels, none of which are canon. All information on Borg cubes that came from a novel is also not canon.

Second, memory-beta claims that a baby "tactical" cube is 3,040 metres. You yourself posted a link to a image of Voyager (132 metres max width) adjacent to a baby cube. How can you reconcile the 3,040 metre figure, with the linked image?

And from the star trek online wiki . http://www.stowiki.org/Tactical_Cube
Star Trek Online is a internet fansite, they can make up anything they want to play their little wargames. It's all fan fiction, some of it is interesting, but non-canon.


Voyager is closer to the camera than the cube.
I have given you references, and maybe those references are not to your liking, but they are references none the less. Memory Alpha didn't mention its size or how it compares to a normal cube.

Your assertion that a Class 4 Tactical Cube is a baby cube, needs to be proven.
The episode Unimatrix Zero, made it obvious to the audience that this was a "bad ass" version of a borg cube. All links I can find say it is a "bad ass" version of a normal borg cube.
You are the only person on this planet claiming it is a "baby cube".
If you have a reference, even a non cannon reference, I'd like to see it. Other wise, I am going to assume that I am correct, until I see something other than your own personal opinion, to contradict me.
RB_Kandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 03:33 AM   #39
mtblillie
Commander
 
mtblillie's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Keep in mind that on paper (or pad) a galaxy class might have the edge, but a battle is won by tactics, not strength. I'm not saying that Janeway and the crew of Voyager would beat Picard and the crew of the Enterprise, I'm just saying that technology is meant to give your side an edge, not a definite victory. Combat is about pitting your strengths against your enemy's weaknesses, while minimizing the exposure of your weaknesses or allowing your enemy to use their strengths.
__________________
-Robert
mtblillie.wordpress.com
mtblillie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 06:48 AM   #40
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

RB_Kandy wrote: View Post
If you have a reference, even a non cannon reference ...
Why would I use something that's non-canon as a reference?

Voyager is closer to the camera than the cube.
No it not, and here's my proof of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDrZohw44ys

I'd like to see it.
The battle between the baby "tactical" cube and Voyager begins at about the two minute mark.

Voyager fires two torpedoes on it's approach. The cube fires three times, first as Voyager approaches, second while it is along side, and third after it passes. The image that you provided a link for is inbetween the second and third firings.

The second firing is from the upper edge and is down onto Voyagers shields. Voyager is along side the cube at this point.

The third firing is as Voyager recedes, striking Voyager's shields from behind. Given Voyagers position inbetween firings two and three is about even with the far face of the cube, the cube isn't even 700 metres square, it's smaller.

It definitely isn't over 3,000 metres.





Other wise, I am going to assume that I am correct
And now you know you're not.

something other than your own personal opinion
Not my opinion, just the facts from the episode, and measurements based on Voyagers width (132 metres).


T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 07:14 AM   #41
RB_Kandy
Commander
 
RB_Kandy's Avatar
 
Location: RB_Kandy
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

T'Girl wrote: View Post
RB_Kandy wrote: View Post
If you have a reference, even a non cannon reference ...
Why would I use something that's non-canon as a reference?

Voyager is closer to the camera than the cube.
No it not, and here's my proof of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDrZohw44ys

The battle between the baby "tactical" cube and Voyager begins at about the two minute mark.

Voyager fires two torpedoes on it's approach. The cube fires three times, first as Voyager approaches, second while it is along side, and third after it passes. The image that you provided a link for is inbetween the second and third firings.

The second firing is from the upper edge and is down onto Voyagers shields. Voyager is along side the cube at this point.

The third firing is as Voyager recedes, striking Voyager's shields from behind. Given Voyagers position inbetween firings two and three is about even with the far face of the cube, the cube isn't even 700 metres square, it's smaller.

It definitely isn't over 3,000 metres.





Other wise, I am going to assume that I am correct
And now you know you're not.

something other than your own personal opinion
Not my opinion, just the facts from the episode, and measurements based on Voyagers width (132 metres).


In that video, at 2:11 is where I took the snap shot. Voyager is parallel with the cube, not in front of it, my bad. But it certainly is not behind the cube.

As for having a non-canon reference, sure, I'd like to see it.
Thus far, you're the only person claiming the class 4 tactical cube is under powered compared to a regular cube.
RB_Kandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 12:01 PM   #42
Finn
Vice Admiral
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Location: In the MetroWest
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

^the video posted by T'Girl supports her comments regarding the length of the tactical cube. The best shot is at 2:09 and 2:10 by looking at the phaser switch, just as it passes the corner of the cube. I'm with her
Finn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 09:26 PM   #43
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

mtblillie wrote: View Post
Keep in mind that on paper (or pad) a galaxy class might have the edge, but a battle is won by tactics, not strength. I'm not saying that Janeway and the crew of Voyager would beat Picard and the crew of the Enterprise, I'm just saying that technology is meant to give your side an edge, not a definite victory. Combat is about pitting your strengths against your enemy's weaknesses, while minimizing the exposure of your weaknesses or allowing your enemy to use their strengths.
So basically Voyager is screwed.

Figured that was how it was going to end.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 09:38 PM   #44
JoeZhang
Vice Admiral
 
JoeZhang's Avatar
 
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

Picard got his crew back from The Triangulum Galaxy in 45 minutes, it took Janeway seven years to cover far less distance - what more needs to be said?

Voyager would be space-dust after a 15 minute section in the middle where Will performs 'The Riker manoeuvre' on Seven while Chatoky stands in the corner and has a face similar to a man having a prostate exam.
JoeZhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2012, 09:50 PM   #45
Finn
Vice Admiral
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Location: In the MetroWest
Re: Enterprise-D vs. Voyager (extenuating circumstances)

^No, Picard didn't. The Traveler did....
Finn is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.