Have you noticed you don't see many manoeuvres in Star Trek!

[Garak007]

Ok I can only recall two times we actually seen manoeuvres in Star Trek. The manoeuvre what Wesley got busted for while he was academy and the Picard Manoeuvre.

We don't see any attack pattern or proper manoeuvres apart from those I can remember.

There has been numerous accessions when the captain says "attack pattern delta" or attack pattern this. We don't get to see it. It's quite unfortunate as we don't see how the enemy is out witted tactically

Can anyone else recall any more manoeuvres or attack patterns we acutally see?

 

[Sibo191]

I remember the Defiant doing manouvers in several episodes. Both before and during the war, and in the MU.

The fleet battle in first contact also showed ships preforming maneuvers, including the E-E.

As far as attack pattern "x" I always took that to be a firing pattern and not an actual maneuver.

 

[Garak007]

I remember the Defiant doing manouvers in several episodes. Both before and during the war, and in the MU.

The fleet battle in first contact also showed ships preforming maneuvers, including the E-E.

As far as attack pattern "x" I always took that to be a firing pattern and not an actual maneuver.

Concerning the E+E and the rest of the ships in the fleet all Picard said concentrate fire at this target and that is what they did. Before that the ships where just going around and around the cube or firing at it and backing off. We don't see an orcastrated maneuver but I did not think about attack patterns being firing patterns. Perhaps that makes some sence.

 

[Green Shirt]

Lets see. A ship makes a turn and fires. Guess that qualifies as a manuever. Happens all the time.

 

[The Wormhole]

Fancy maneuvers are difficult to film. This was especially the case back in the day when physical models were used for the ships.

 

[Garak007]

Fancy maneuvers are difficult to film. This was especially the case back in the day when physical models were used for the ships.

Ah you see my point

 

[T'Girl]

We don't see an orchestrated maneuver

There's a difference between Evasive Action (free formed) and Attack Pattern (carved in stone). What was seen during the attack on the Borg cube near Earth was more a series of attack runs, Picard's tactic of gathering the Fleet on a single side of the cube and firing upon it a narrow arc would be a example of a Fleet maneuver. Having the Fleet do something in a coordinated way.

Certainly the Fleet maneuvers we actual saw during the Dominion War were boarder line ridiculous, most of Captain Sisko's attack patterns had all the mystery and subtlety of a eighteenth century horse cavalry charge across open ground. There was never any dialog to suggest that there was more happening off screen.

.

 

[Caliburn24]

Without a lot of exposition and thought given to the exact capabilities of the weapons, defenses and ships, tactics and maneuvers are essentially meaningless.

Trek has never had the desire(with maybe the partial exception of STII, the most thought out of Trek's ship battles) to really explain how things work and why one side is doing one thing and the other side is doing the other.

However, the one thing that could be shown, and is mostly in line with what we have seen of Trek technology is rotating the ship to spread enemy fire over a wider portion of your shields. Just a simple barrel roll to bring your dorsal or ventral shields into play.

But...I don't think we've seen even that happen.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

However, the one thing that could be shown, and is mostly in line with what we have seen of Trek technology is rotating the ship to spread enemy fire over a wider portion of your shields. Just a simple barrel roll to bring your dorsal or ventral shields into play.

But...I don't think we've seen even that happen.

As far as I know, we've only seen this once.

And it was in "Nemesis" of all places!

 

[T'Girl]

And it was in "Nemesis" of all places!

For all the movies flaws, the combat shown during Nemesis wasn't too shabby.

 

[Timo]

We also see the Defiant do a seemingly senseless barrel roll when in close combat with the Lakota in "Paradise Lost".

This maneuver doesn't make the Lakota miss; indeed, the adversary ship scores a perfect series of hits from its multitude of emitters, as is typical for all Starfleet battles against uncloaked opponents. However, the maneuver might have two advantages: the damage distribution trick suggested above, and the fact that the Defiant has, at least in this episode, a dorsally mounted phaser somewhere next to the bridge, and can bring this weapon to bear by rolling during the close pass. But the latter advantage alone doesn't yet justify the rolling, because Worf could have chosen to fly in the desired orientation all the time. So the hit distribution idea sounds like the best interpretation.

The E-E also rolls in ST:INS, to deliver a blow against Rua'fo's command ship from her ventral phasers. Whether this has anything to do with hit distribution is anybody's guess; we learn little about how shields behave in the Briar Patch, and what role this strange environment plays in the need to reset shields after hits.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Caliburn24]

As far as ship mounted phasers and other beam weapons go, I've always had a number of nerdy technical questions.

1) Can you focus all of your lets call it "phaser power" through a single emitter? A single powerful phaser beam in essence.

If the answer is no...

2) Why are Starfleet ships not shown firing multiple phaser beams far more often(other than real world budgetary reasons)?

3) Why aren't Starfleet ships designed with a broadside style design philosophy that lets them focus the maximum number of phaser emitters at a single target? Other than the Defiant with its massive frontal firepower, all other Starships seem to have dispersed emitters that give them the ability to fire in any direction, but limited ability to focus those emitters on one target.

 

[iguana_tonante]

1) Can you focus all of your lets call it "phaser power" through a single emitter? A single powerful phaser beam in essence.

My interpretation is that every emitter is powered singularly, not through a distributer "phaser power" grid.

2) Why are Starfleet ships not shown firing multiple phaser beams far more often(other than real world budgetary reasons)?

In a battle between shielded vessels, precision of hits might me more useful than number of strikes, so the limiting factor could be computational power of the targeting system, not the power used by the phasers.

3) Why aren't Starfleet ships designed with a broadside style design philosophy that lets them focus the maximum number of phaser emitters at a single target? Other than the Defiant with its massive frontal firepower, all other Starships seem to have dispersed emitters that give them the ability to fire in any direction, but limited ability to focus those emitters on one target.

My idea is that Starfleet vessels are build with a defensive philosophy, and phasers are intended to give the ship a point-blank defense system for incoming missiles and torpedoes in addiction to their offensive role. Torpedo launchers, on the other hand, seem to be much more focused. Also, the maneuverability of Starfleet ships seems somehow lacking (hence the revolutionary role of the Defiant class), so spreading the attack arches of the phasers seems like a good idea, or you may finish the battle without even having locked your frontal-facing weapons on your enemy.

 

[Timo]

1) Can you focus all of your lets call it "phaser power" through a single emitter? A single powerful phaser beam in essence.

If the answer is no...

2) Why are Starfleet ships not shown firing multiple phaser beams far more often(other than real world budgetary reasons)?

3) Why aren't Starfleet ships designed with a broadside style design philosophy that lets them focus the maximum number of phaser emitters at a single target?

I'd argue that the answer to 1) must be "yes" - not because the ships wouldn't be designed with "broadside" emitters, but because they clearly are designed that way (each saucer surface is full of little turrets in the Kirk-era ships) and still only one beam at a time is fired from this multitude of emitters that all point in the direction of the enemy.

There's only one instance in Starfleet history where two beams from different emitter locations converge on the same target: in "Sacrifice of Angels", where two beams from different parts of the saucer strip of a Galaxy hit the same Cardassian vessel. Apparently, hitting the enemy with two or more beams is virtually never better than hitting him with just a single beam.

And this is completely unrelated to targeting issues, as most targets don't maneuver out of the way at all, and those that do maneuver wildly are nevertheless hit with 100% accuracy. If two beams produced twice the hitting power (even when perhaps carrying a 30% accuracy penalty), Starfleet would always fire two beams, and typically six or ten from a Kirk-era saucertop or saucer bottom!

Nor is it a coverage issue: Galaxy skippers could always have hit targets with two beams, "Sacrifice of Angels" style, with their main saucer phaser strips, regardless of where the targets were located. Or with ten beams for that matter. If one part of the strip can hit the enemy, then all parts generally can. Or if one saucertop turret from Kirk era can hit the target, all six can.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[iguana_tonante]

Good points. My only doubt is that "flying in a straight line" and "maneuvering wildly" in the (supposed but never shown) fully 3-dimensional, quasi-relativist environment of Star Trek may not be as straightforward as in aerial or naval combat.

 

[Smiley]

At least we get to see some 3D maneuvering in "All Good Things...."

 

[Myasishchev]

We don't see an orcastrated maneuver

That's because they're in the dark.

 

[Apophis]

The Defiant aside, most Trek ships aren't comparable to fighter aircraft or even small boats. Their closest analogous counterparts are large surface or submerged naval ships. I'm not a navy vet, but I don't think those ships are meant to behave like that. It's more of a 'move to this position, hold here and fire weapons/deploy assets' kinda thing. For a ship as big as the Enterprise D/E, for example, to be flitting about, rolling and banking would seem a bit ridiculous to me. But, then again, warfare as depicted in Trek never struck me as particularly plausible. I think Stargate SG-1 did a better job portraying this, at least closer to what I think it would be like.

And I know space is big, and the ships aren't 'huge' in comparison to their theatre of operations, but they are still 'big' engineering-wise and are likely to have endurance limits and operational limits as to what they can safely be expected to do maneuver-wise. A 700+ meter ship has a lot of inertial potential to deal with when changing directions in a short span of time.

And all that might not even be 'right', but we can't know that unless/until we get into combat with other spaceships. So, for TV drama you can either do as Trek does (which is to get the general point of the battle across and not worry over showing accurate tactical maneuvers) or portray it along the lines of something we do know about, like naval combat.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Caliburn24]

My favorite break down of plausible space warfare tactics, within what we know of science and technology can be found at...
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3z.html

It makes the point, and backs it up quite well in my opinion that space warfare would be very different than the dog-fighting or naval warfare paradigm that exists so often in science fiction.

A basic but often overlooked feature of interplanetary combat is the fact that it is in three dimensions, not two. Think "airplane dogfighting", not "wet-navy battleship duel".


Actually it is even more extreme than airplane dogfighting, since airplanes have a strict limit of how far up or down they can go. Spacecraft have no limit.


Orientation has no limit as well. In Star Trek you never see one ship approach another with one ship flying "upside down", but in reality there is no reason not to. In many SF space combat games, one can change the ship's orientation in order to allow different sets of weapon turrets to bear on the enemy.

I recommend the linked site very highly, well worth at least a quick skim.

 

[Vanyel]

Also, the maneuverability of Starfleet ships seems somehow lacking...

That's stating it mildly. In Yesterday's Enterprise, when the BoP attacks the 1701C, Cpt. Garrett orders evasive maneuvers, Castillo initiates them and the very next exterior shot shows the 1701C sitting still.