So those evasive maneuvers/patterns/actions...

[George]

I disagree with the idea that it makes it harder to maintain fire on a certain area of the ship. Even todays target-guided weapons have impressive accuracy. By the 24th century, one would think that this technology has been perfected and a target lock can be maintained as well as the computer calculating (by the speed and direction of the ships movements) where the target area would be once the torpedo/phaser beam gets there.

 

[GeorgeKirk]

Doesn't the notion of the Captain having to order evasive maneuvers kind of conflict with the idea, often stated by Roddenberry, that the Enterprise crew are trained professionals who are more than able to anticipate the Captain's orders and act accordingly? I mean, if the ship is getting shot at, is the helmsperson really going to just sit on his/her hands until the Captain shouts "Evasive!"

 

[Robert DeSoto]

In Starfleet Command III you could order the ship to use 'erratic maneuvers', which randomly increased and decreased propulsion speed and turned the ship... rather erratically.

The problem with erratic maneuvers is they work both ways. Sure, it's harder for them to hit you because the angular velocity between the two moving ships increases significantly, but it increases the same amount for you and that means you won't hit the enemy, either.

So, they are effective, but only in a defensive way. Because of the aggressive nature of the game (win or go home in an escape pod), I rarely used them. It was more important to put fire on the target. If I was in a situation like Kirk in TWOK or Picard in Yesterday's Enterprise I would defiantly use them as much as the situation could allow.

I think the best combat simulator is Bridge Commander. If the enemy ship's engine's are disabled, its a pretty easy target. You just keep pounding the same spot and you'll quickly penetrate the shields and breach the hull. But when it's moving around, you're not hitting the same spot, so the damage is more spread out. It takes much longer to penetrate the shields and hull. At the same time he's maneuvering to line up his weapons array on you so you're trying to keep you're weakest shields away from his fire while lining up you're strongest weapons on him.

If you're in command of a big ship like the Excelsior class or the Galaxy class, you're not going to be able to avoid the majority of the enemy's weapons fire. But it's still better than letting him attack the same spot like when you're a sitting duck.

Of course the smaller ships, like the Defiant have a much better chance of evading enemy fire completely.

The evasive maneuvers in Star Trek aren't just random "erratic" maneuvers like in Starfleet Command. The ships move around and try to return fire at the same time.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

In the some 700 odd hours of Trek there must have been at least one occasion in which evasive maneuvers actually avoided fire...

Didn't it work in BotW when Enterprise moved left?

 

[Kirby]

In the some 700 odd hours of Trek there must have been at least one occasion in which evasive maneuvers actually avoided fire...

Yeah, good question. I only recall the shield percentage rapidly decreasing after the evasive order.

What you'll never hear:
Janeway: Evasive maneuvers!
Paris: Aye Captain.
Tuvok: Shields are at 100%
Janeway: Continue evasive
Tuvok: Shields are at 100%
Tuvok: Shields still at 100%
Tuvok: Shields holding at 100%
Tuvok: They're not even close to hitting us. We could lower the shields and save energy.

 

[Timo]

The problem with erratic maneuvers is they work both ways. Sure, it's harder for them to hit you because the angular velocity between the two moving ships increases significantly, but it increases the same amount for you and that means you won't hit the enemy, either.

That problem goes away if the maneuvering is "pseudo-erratic" - that is, if your own fire control computer is in speaking terms with your maneuvering computer. The game doesn't work that way - you aim manually there. But "real" starships would be able to fire accurately even when maneuvering.

By the 24th century, one would think that this technology has been perfected and a target lock can be maintained as well as the computer calculating (by the speed and direction of the ships movements) where the target area would be once the torpedo/phaser beam gets there.

That only works if the ship is moving sufficiently slowly and in a sufficiently predictable manner, though. Pseudo-erratic maneuvers might suffice for distracting even a 24th-century-fast weapon system, in the sense that the point of weapon impact would be at least a couple of meters off from intended.

Starships can't really do the sort of evasion that aircraft today do: they can't gain a lead on the enemy in the use of a particular motion vector. Aircraft may maneuver so that suddenly they are able to deeply dive away at minimal engine power from the enemy's cone of fire, while the enemy will have to use extreme engine power to follow. For spacecraft, all vectors are more or less identical, though (there's no gravity towards one direction or aerodynamic lift towards another, there's just engine thrust), and cones of fire cover the entire 4pi space around the ship.

Basically, then, starships just maneuver in order to turn different aspects of their hull towards the enemy. And sometimes to evade clumsier weapons such as torpedoes or mechanically steered beam weapons (the Jem'Hadar beams were said to have mechanical steering in "The Ship", perhaps explaining how the heroes sometimes managed to evade those while Starfleet beams could never be evaded by the enemy).

I mean, if the ship is getting shot at, is the helmsperson really going to just sit on his/her hands until the Captain shouts "Evasive!"

Sometimes that would be a very good idea. For example, Picard might wish to make the point that he can take names and his ship can take the pitiful fire of the enemy without flinching. The helmsbabe anticipating and evading on her own would ruin Picard's attempt at making that point.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Smellincoffee]

They're patterns: forms of movement likely to be used repeatedly to achieve certain ends, like approaches in combat. It's likely that the Klingons, Romulans, and Borg have seen these patterns before. Most ST ships are large enough that anything fired in their general direction will hit...Defiants and Sabre-class ships that are small and quick are exceptions in Federation shipbuilding, apparently.

 

[Gary7]

What really bothered me is that the maneuvers showed the ships "banking" in space. Aircraft do that off of air... in space, you've got a vacuum. Sure, in the early years I could understand them missing this point. Star Wars went gangbusters with banking craft in space. But "Babylon 5" took a very good stab at spacecraft operating in a real vacuum. They could have at least tried this in the Star Trek movies. You see thrusters activated and the ship pivoting freely based on that, rather than having to take a sweeping arc to "come around".

 

[KJbushway]

Evasive maneuvers are simply away to make the battle scene more interesting and also evasive maneuvers don't always include firing. Just saying evasive maneuvers could easily be a way for the writers to show that just hitting back isn't the answer.

Also there is a likely chance that if you just stay still that even if you have superior fire power your going to take a lot of damage.