[/QUOTE]
At least in this film they didnt sit round and tried to fire back at their unseen enemy[/QUOTE]
Space is pretty big, you cant expect to hit something that's invisible at a distant range by pure luck.
Even if a ship is only 10km away, that means it could actually occupy anywhere in 3-dimensional space within 10km. That's 10km * 10km * 10km, a very large volume indeed.
To further illustrate my point, try playing battleships with just one battleship occupying one square. There are 100 squares on a battleship board, so that is 1 in 100 times that you'd actually 'hit' the ship.
Now even if you randomly hit the ship, you dont know what vector its moving along (unless it is continuously firing and maintaining a constant speed). Without triangulation (3 points of contact) you cannot accurately track the ship.
Star Trek VI got it right. Kirk did the right thing by reversing the ship (and thus minimising the target).
Nemesis on the other hand made the space-battle look like a video game.
Sorry for the slight rant
At least in this film they didnt sit round and tried to fire back at their unseen enemy[/QUOTE]
Space is pretty big, you cant expect to hit something that's invisible at a distant range by pure luck.
Even if a ship is only 10km away, that means it could actually occupy anywhere in 3-dimensional space within 10km. That's 10km * 10km * 10km, a very large volume indeed.
To further illustrate my point, try playing battleships with just one battleship occupying one square. There are 100 squares on a battleship board, so that is 1 in 100 times that you'd actually 'hit' the ship.
Now even if you randomly hit the ship, you dont know what vector its moving along (unless it is continuously firing and maintaining a constant speed). Without triangulation (3 points of contact) you cannot accurately track the ship.
Star Trek VI got it right. Kirk did the right thing by reversing the ship (and thus minimising the target).
Nemesis on the other hand made the space-battle look like a video game.
Sorry for the slight rant
