Warning: huge post incoming (even by my standards
). I'm hoping to put this all to rest here.
I've given you all the lee-way I can.
You've given
me leeway?
I have a somewhat high standard for evidence and logic that you simply couldn't grasp in this issue.
How foolish of me to think that I, a mere mortal, could begin to comprehend your mighty logic.
Your refusal to accept the canon model as evidence and "Paradise Lost" along with reasonable speculation becomes an issue of interpretation.
I am not refusing to accept anything when it comes to canon. "Reasonable speculation" and "an issue of interpretation" is what I have been trying to say this IS. Choosing not to agree with your speculation isn't me "refusing to accept facts", it's just that I have my own reasonable speculations, as well.
When you said (repeatedly) to "look at the model" or "canon model", regarding the Excelsior and other ships, I just assumed you meant "look at the
on-screen model". As in, study the filmed appearances of this ship and look at the number of visible weapons. How was I to know that you didn't just mean that, but also included a non-canon source as legit when talking about "look at the canon model"? I'm referring, of course, to this:
And you're wrong.
(bunch of huge pics of Excelsior blueprints; you really SHOULD shrink those or make them links, they are stretching the thread as Jono pointed out)
--
Now I've done my due diligence of visually proving my case of 28 phasers. If you still don't agree that these are phasers despite that their canon then I don't know how to tell you this but that's to bad. I'm going to go with canon.
For heaven's sake. Stick to your own standards of evidence, will you?
Star Trek: Unnamed is not canon. Those were drawn by fans. And as per the studio policy, NO blueprints or schematics - even those published by Paramount or Pocket - are "canon".
You kept saying "Look at 'Paradise Lost, look at 'Paradise Lost'." And I'm TELLING you that going by THAT EP ALONE (and not involving non-canon blueprints that you like to pretend are canon), one cannot KNOW that the Excelsior has 28 phaser emitters. One can
speculate that, but not "know" it.
We only SEE it fire from SIX distinct points. As I said, we can assume that those other bolt-things on the saucer are
also phaser banks, since we saw a couple of them fire phasers. (Note: legitimate divergence here; you interpreted those bolts as two emitters
each, I interpreted them as one each. Hence, ten on the saucer vs. twenty. No way to know with absolute certainty on that particular point, but my "no way it's 28" is based on one emitter each, hence ten on the saucer). Besides the saucer banks, we saw phasers fire from the neck below the impulse engines (there's almost no chance that there
isn't an accompanying bank on the other side, so that's two), from the belly (so we know there's at least one down there, but we don't know FOR CERTAIN that there is
more than one), from the dorsal point between the impulse engines, and from a point between the nacelle pylons. That's IT. That's all we KNOW.
"Inspect the canon model" does not mean "consult Star Trek: Unnamed." It means inspect the
on-screen model. And the on-screen Excelsior model does not in any way prove 28 phaser emitters.
Let me say this: frankly, given what I laid out in terms of the difference between "arrays" and "banks" (and the disadvantages associated with the latter), I actually personally LIKE the idea of Excelsior having 28. I think your reasoning makes sense, I think the Star Trek: Unnamed blueprints make sense.
That doesn't change the fact that going STRICTLY by "canon", it is not a sure thing. There's nothing in canon
stopping the Excelsior from having all those emitters, but it's not "confirmed". That's all I'm saying.
You're mixing up everything and you're in complete retrograde. I EXPLICITLY layout a correction to that post and you're ignoring it. You're ignoring quite a few things. And at this point I'm thinking you saw you were wrong and somehow you're having a problem making the admission.
I'm not ignoring or mixing up
anything. I haven't "seen I'm wrong" (since I'm not), and I am NOT the one having problems admitting things here (I have freely admitted how much of MY arguments are speculation, numerous times). And you didn't "explicitly layout" anything about arrays vs. banks vs. emitters, unless you are referring to this:
No you don't know you banks from your emitters. Lets do a little research.
Memory Alpha.
Each bank contained one or more phaser emitters from which the beam energy was actually released but which shared common power sources and targeting systems.
-which, while interesting reading, has nothing to do with arrays vs. banks. It DOES clarify emitters vs. banks, but that wasn't the issue on my end. As I said, YOU were the one who started out saying the Excelsior has "more than 16 arrays"
The question is what do you have to work with. Excelsior has more than 16 phaser arrays and dual fore and aft torpedo launchers and very maneuverable on impulse.
when, in fact, it has
none. It has a number of phaser
banks (how many, exactly, we can't say for sure in terms of on-screen canon). But an array is a
different way of setting up emitters on the hull, one that the Excelsior does not employ.
Oh, and since you are so fond of sticking to canon, the Excelsior has never been
shown to have anything better than average or decent maneuverability at impulse. More speculation.
And speaking of ignoring, you ignored
this (putting a link instead of posting the contents; this post is big enough already):
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4765733&postcount=73
...which was
key to the whole "arrays/banks/emitters" deal. And full disclosure: I
did "mix up" my terminology ONCE, when referring to the
Defiant's phaser banks (not the pulse cannons, the ones that fire traditional "long" beams) as "arrays" earlier. But you can't accuse me of ignoring something I didn't ignore, and as for mixing things up, like I said, you're the one who started out with "arrays", moved to "banks" without clarification, and then threw in the meaningless "turrets" for good measure.
Okay...so there are comparable sizes...
How does this prove that Defiant and Saber are comprable war ships? My statements point stands. They were still getting torched by single shots. I do not understand your argument are you just being contrary or is there a point I should be tryin to understand from this data other than size?
He can correct my if I'm wrong, but I believe
Kestrel's only point in that particular post was that the assertion that the
Defiant is tiny compared to the Saber is incorrect.
BASED...yes...but the logic doesn't follow through.
Reasonably we've seen these ships use almost every firing arc just because of screen time. Akira has had the same screen time and we've never seen it fire aft, or latteral or even fire all of it's forward tubes. It's thus reasonable to call into question whether it has full use of those hard-points.
"Akira has had the same screen time" as
what, exactly? Excelsior has had
considerably more screen time in total, and obviously Defiant and Galaxy have had WAY more screentime than even Excelsior. Intrepid, too.
We've never seen the Nebula do anything other than fire a few shots at a time straight forward (either phasers or torps) on-screen, either, despite it's
numerous appearances. Are we to assume that it's lateral phaser arrays don't work and that it has a lousy rate of fire, despite its obvious design similarities to the Galaxy which we know can fire quickly and in (virtually) all directions?
More on this below.
Indeed. A 400 meter ship gets taken out by a sweep of the Borg tractor beam and Defiant at 120 or in this Movie 50 meters long remains completely intact. It's truly pathetic .
Again, you
do not know that any of the ships seen being destroyed by the Borg in FC were being hit with full shields. They could have been trashed off-screen and this was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
And no, that they were "visually undamaged" doesn't mean squat. There is ZERO visible damage to the Ent-D as the Klingon cruisers close in at the end of the fight in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (the little
navigational lights were still blinking!). Yet we know that just before the Ent-C enters the rift, Ent-D's shields are failing, the warp core is about to breach and main engineering is falling apart, Riker is dead and the bridge is ON FIRE.
Sometimes the effects guys just neglect to show physical external damage. That doesn't automatically mean a ship
isn't beaten all to crap. The "visual record" isn't 100% reliable in Trek.
Again, more on this below.
*shrug* I don't interpret I just give you the facts and if necessary speculate reasonably on canon. No evidence justifies so far that these ships are comparable to Defiant or are combat oriented ships. I make the same argument for the Nebula class which "seems" to have a plethora of torpedo tubes but NEVER EVER use them and JEEZ guys you haven't even given an explanation of why.
I'm sorry, but you have done far more than "give us facts." This is my very problem with your posts: you still refuse to distinguish between "This is clearly demonstrated on-screen; there is no other way to interpret this" and "This looks to me like it's this way based on what we saw on-screen, though it's just one possibility and just my interpretation."
And for the record, I DON'T think the Saber or Steamrunner are meant to be "combat-oriented ships" in the same way the Akira is, personally. Combat-capable, and certainly not worthless as you seem to think, but not on that same level.
So far you're quibbling over "The beam swept across the Akira", "OH Defiant is the same size as the Saber", Split the hair if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that these ships fall far short of the Defiant in defensive ability and offensive ability. Every indicatioin is that these ships are run-of-the mill, garden variety.
Except for the fact that Starfleet threw then against the Borg and the Dominion repeatedly. Your assertion that they were only there as "spam" ships or cannon fodder is just YOUR interpretation.
Intrepid: 15 phasers and 4 tubes
Galaxy: 12 phasers 3 tubes
Sovereign: 16 phasers and 9 tubes
Defiant: 4 Phaser 2 phaser turrets, 4 torpedo tubes
Nova: 10 phasers 4 tubes
Excelsior 28 phasers 4 tubes
Constitution II: 18 phasers 2 tubes
Miranda: 14 phaser 4 tubes
But this so called "modern ships of First Contact
Akira: 3 phasers 15 tubes
Saber: 3 phasers 2 tube
Steamrunner: 4 phasers no torpedo tubes
Norway: Who knows
These ships are at best after thoughts. They weren't properly designed or scaled or armed. Akira has the most hull detail only because it was planned to play a central role.
Pretty sure there isn't any canon evidence (remember, blueprints don't count) for those Constitution II or Miranda numbers, either.
But that aside: "more on this below"; here it is, as promised.
After thoughts. This is true, to some degree: not in-universe, but certainly from a production standpoint. They were basically created FOR that
(really short) battle in FC, then they decided to use them later in DS9, but didn't have the time/money/inclination to modify them. But this is the big problem I see with going STRICTLY by canon - literally, interpreting everything we see on-screen as EXACTLY what happened and taking it all at face value.
How come the phasers fired from the torpedo tube in "Darmok"? How could Starfleet hold their own in the Dominion War if ships not named
Defiant hardly ever even
opened fire? How come the Vor'cha's seen charging into battle during that great moment in "Sacrifice of Angels" were inexplicably tiny compared to the Galors seen past them?
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6827/sacraficeofangels144.jpg
How come Troi said she had never kissed Riker with a beard before in INS when she had, a number of times?
The shows are written and produced by fallible real-life humans. Sometimes they make mistakes, or do things in an odd way, or are constrained by budgetary or time restrictions and the realities of television production. Mistakes happen. Do we REALLY want to say that everything that happened on screen is absolute? This is why I think it is essential to take out of universe considerations into account. "Hero ships" DO matter. Are we really to believe that the
Enterprise(s), the
Defiant, and
Voyager are just BETTER than any other ships in the fleet? The producers show the hero ships as being able to survive things other ships cannot. It's a very old trope in science fiction.
And to be frank, I don't think it makes any sense that the Akira has only 3 phaser arrays. I wish they
hadn't depicted the model that way. But it could have other weapons we just didn't see (perhaps it mounts phaser "banks" as well, to cover the lack of arrays). Is there any proof that it does? No. Is there any proof that it
doesn't? No. That's all I'm saying.
I'm speculating. Quite a bit. I do it all the time; I have my own Trek stories, and to write them, I need to feel like I know, at least more or less, what ships can do. Since the canon and semi-canon information is
all over the goddamned place, I HAVE to speculate and fill in the gaps in what I feel is a logical way.
I have nothing against you doing the same. I'm just saying, that IS what you are doing. If you look at the canon visuals, combine it with non-canon info and your own interpretation and come away thinking the Akira sucks, then fine. I disagree, but fine. But there is no solid canon evidence that can be reasonably taken at face-value "proving" that the Akira sucks. There is no evidence unless one goes BEYOND the canon that the Excelsior class has 28 phaser emitters or is particularly maneuverable at impulse. And things like an Akira going down in "one shot" to a Borg cube CANNOT always be taken at face value, nor can you assume that the ship was undamaged. Trek ship power levels are all over the map in the filmed canon and intricate details such as external damage are
often not shown.
And regarding mistakes: you stressed that Okuda confirmed the hull registry on the
Prometheus, and then went on to say that "mistakes happen, no big deal", and ask "What-I should ignore Okuda?" First off: the hull registry actually supports
my theory, since it was NX-59650, and the internal one was NX-74913. But, I don't know of Okuda confirming one OR the other. All I'm aware of is this:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Prometheus_(Prometheus_class)#R
This is just another example of what I'm talking about. Out-of-universe, it's clearly just an error, but it leads to
three possible in-universe explanations.
#1: it's really NX-59650. Registries don't always go in chronological order. Ignore NX-74913.
#2: the opposite of #1.
#3: the explanation offered on that MA page, that is started as one and was due to be changed to the higher one; they just hadn't gotten to the hull yet. This still proves that registries don't HAVE to be chronological, and supports a theory I've held (mentioned in a previous post) that a design is assigned a registry before the prototype is actually
built, so if there are delays in building said prototype, it would finally be built with an "out-of-order" registry. Obviously #1 supports this as well
.
There is NO WAY to know for certain which explanation is meant to be correct
in-canon or
in-universe. So if I choose #1 or #3, and you choose #2, that's fine. We obviously wouldn't agree then, but neither of us has gotten any close to "proving" which one is "fact." And one of the reasons I referenced this is that it's not fair for you to say "Oh, that's just a mistake, it's CLEARLY meant to have a higher registry" in response to it, then turn around and - when I say that the Akira having so few weapons is just a production goof - say "NO IT SUCKS IT HAS ONLY 3 PHASERS WE SAW IT IT'S CANON"
To quote myself:
Of course, the Akira & friends from FC could just BE older, that's still just as possible as mine. Neither one has canon (or even close to it) backing, which just serves to further reinforce just how much of these questions come down to feel and speculation.
That's ALL I'm getting at.
Whew. I need a drink.
