The Siege of AR-558, Infantry Combat of the 24th Century

[Natural]

This is a great episode. I thought the guest stars were fantastic and had me hoping they would pop up in future episodes/series. It made sense given the war arc to have a front-lines story like this, and I'm happy they pulled it off well. If you want to get nerdy you could think of 1000 reasons why 24th century infantry warfare wouldn't have played out like it did in the episode, but in this case the human side was much more important than the sci-fi.

I was relieved they didn't include Worf in the plot. It would have made sense for practical reasons, but we'd been through Klingon battle philosophies ad nauseam. It was important to have emphasis on the human side for this one, which includes the Ferengi, ironically.

One of my favorite DS9 eps.

 

[Cyke101]

Apologies, double-post.

 

[Cyke101]

I was relieved they didn't include Worf in the plot. It would have made sense for practical reasons, but we'd been through Klingon battle philosophies ad nauseam. It was important to have emphasis on the human side for this one, which includes the Ferengi, ironically.

Agreed, the OP brought up the great point that the DS9 heroes were mostly made up of non-combatants like Ezri and Quark, which was a fantastic storymaking decision. You're absolutely right, seeing Worf, Kira, and O'Brien there would've ruined everything, as they're ultra-capable on the battlefield.

RDM and co obviously don't understand military tactics, or even the effect of technology on ground warfare, but its obvious the budget affected the episode, and it had a lesser effect than it could have. It would have been nice to see some hoppers.

RAMA

Episode director Winrich Kolbe is a Vietnam Vet. According to Memory Alpha, he purposely used his memories to employ the age-old device of ditches with flying debris everywhere for the confusing and hectic atmosphere.

Only in Star Trek does "logical use of tech" mean "characters don't have to do anything" and "no drama" and "boring." (Ok, massive exaggeration. "Only in tech fantasy".)

This is irony of Star Trek. It's supposed to be a "human story", we're supposed to have empathy for these people when they encounter problems. Yet, what the producers don't seem to realize, is that making characters and organizations perpetually stupid is completely counterproductive to this.

It is far more effective when characters do everything they possibly can and still fail, instead of making a token effort and then complaining about things going wrong.

The whole Dominion War, indeed the whole of Star Trek, would have been far more poignant if the characters had brains, instead of lacking them. Instead, I find myself laughing far too much when characters die and ships blow up.

For ground action, I'd argue that it would have to stay that way... much along the same lines why in historical Samurai war films, we never see samurai kick as much ass as they usually do in fantasy. Sure, in reality, they knew hundreds of techniques, but so did the enemy: all in all, things evened out on the battlefield. With a limited budget, there's not much else to show that than with equal firepower.

But for starship battles, esp. for Trek battles, I'd very much agree with your assessment. We've seen ships do warp attacks and strafing maneuvers, but very very inconsistently, which adds to the near-cartoony nature.

 

[Saito S]

My take on this ep's depiction of combat is similar to what Dingoand a few others have said: basically, this ep is not meant to be representative of how Trek ground combat is supposed to be, or generally is. It's representative of what happens when both sides (the Starfleet side more, though, in this case) have already been beaten to crap, and THEN they have to slug it out with a comparably sized enemy force. Maybe one or both sides did have some of the technology and equipment that many in this thread have been mentioning we should have seen, but it's been destroyed by the constant fighting. Or just wasn't appliacable to the situation for whatever reason (such as the suggestion that the terrain was too difficult for most ground vehicles, or that the Defiant prevented the Jen'Hadar from deploying any ground craft at the start of the ep).
And yes, I'm aware that none of those explanations are supported by any on screen-evidence, but in this case, I feel it doesn't matter. Sometimes, when they want to tell a certain story, I don't mind hand-waving this kind of stuff away to help them tell it. Sure, the "real" reasons no doubt have more to do with budgetary or time constraints and a lack of understanding of military tactics on the part of the writers, but who cares?
Well, obviously some do, but I don't. Not when the ep is this good. But that, too, is subjective.

Yet, what the producers don't seem to realize, is that making characters and organizations perpetually stupid is completely counterproductive to this.

It is far more effective when characters do everything they possibly can and still fail, instead of making a token effort and then complaining about things going wrong.

The whole Dominion War, indeed the whole of Star Trek, would have been far more poignant if the characters had brains, instead of lacking them. Instead, I find myself laughing far too much when characters die and ships blow up.

I have seen this take from many over the years, and I have to say, I don't get it. I enjoy the show. I think it's great. So for me, the explanation "Well, clearly there's some writing flubbing going on here. But in-universe, it's safe to assume there is a good reason for them doing what they're doing, they just didn't specifiy what that reason is on-screen" makes a hell of a lot more sense than "I am watching a TV show about idiots".
Yes, the first explanation requires more suspension of disbelief... but to me, Trek (and shows like it) is all about suspension of diebelief, isn't it?
If I find myself unable to look at a given TV show with that perspective, if I find that when people die and ships blow up during massive battles as part of an overarching war story, I'm laughing, as you put it... then I stop watching that show, because clearly, I am unable to take it seriously, which in turn (for me) means I really don't like said show. If I were to actually start rationalizing in my mind some of the inconsistencies and writing flubs (and I'm not saying they aren't there, cause they ARE) with the explanation "Starfleet is, in fact, an organization of complete retards", then I've lost my ability to enjoy the show.

 

[StarryEyed]

I'm amazed at all the hate for this episode. I'm very anal about scientific/logical accuracy, consistency and continuity but I LOVE this episode anyway. It does what it was designed to do - immerse the viewer in the middle of a very ugly situation and highlight the human reaction to that situation. It's very powerful human story that impacted me like a hammer. I was conscience of the fact that a real battle between 24th century combatants wouldn't be fought this way but that was buried beneath the sheer power of the story.

It's not like it was a Star Wars battle with lasers and slingshots and shield generators carried on the backs of pack animals.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

^^^
Maybe part of it could have been that we've seen this type of story thousands and thousands of times before, and done better.

The reason to do it in Trek would be to give it Trek's spin. Which they didn't do. So it came across as cliched as possible. Why do this story for Star Trek if you're not going to set it in Star Trek terms?

I recall the writers often saying they would try to tell a story that you couldn't tell in any other show. If you're going to tell a medical story, make sure you can't tell it on ER. If you're going to do a submarine story, make sure you can't do it as a Hunt for Red October sequel. And with Siege, they didn't even try to give it anything distict, it seems. Which is the greatest shame. You created a whole universe, spent how many hours building it up. And then you don't really use it.

There's my disappointment, at least.

 

[Cyke101]

^^^
Maybe part of it could have been that we've seen this type of story thousands and thousands of times before, and done better.

The reason to do it in Trek would be to give it Trek's spin. Which they didn't do. So it came across as cliched as possible. Why do this story for Star Trek if you're not going to set it in Star Trek terms?

I recall the writers often saying they would try to tell a story that you couldn't tell in any other show. If you're going to tell a medical story, make sure you can't tell it on ER. If you're going to do a submarine story, make sure you can't do it as a Hunt for Red October sequel. And with Siege, they didn't even try to give it anything distict, it seems. Which is the greatest shame. You created a whole universe, spent how many hours building it up. And then you don't really use it.

There's my disappointment, at least.

Just curious, but what could they have done to give it more of a Trek spin? I remember reading that they planned for more grisly scenes, but it had to be scaled back simply because it was Trek, to say nothing else about their use of weapons and the mission's goal.

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

By the way, heavy weaponry and vehicules wouldn't make any sense for the Jem Hadar. They don't have cloaking technology, only shrouding biological capabilities. I think moving your un-fatiguable soldiers by foot while they are invisible makes more sense than carrying them all into one vehicule that can easily be blown up and is visible.


Also, I always had the impression that the reason why klingons didn't used much disrupter fire in Ops (nor did Starfleet) was to protect the delicate equipment. You don't want to see the Station go into a warpcore breach because somebody shot the wrong panel...

 

[Timo]

They don't have cloaking technology, only shrouding biological capabilities.

What's the difference? A single Jem'Hadar foot soldier can cloak his personal weapon and his uniform perfectly well. Mount thirty Jem'Hadar on a transport/combat vehicle, and they will probably be able to cloak that...

Besides, there are many examples of Jem'Hadar ships taking their enemies by surprise. Cloaking is not directly mentioned as the cause, but it is a reasonable assumption. Similarly, already in the introductory "Jem'Hadar" our heroes wonder where Vorta agent Eris disappeared; we see her employing a transporter or disintegration beam of some sort, and we later learn (even though the writers of "Jem'Hadar" probably intended otherwise) that the Vorta are not likely to commit suicide when cornered. Beaming onto a cloaked vessel is a distinct possibility, then.

Also, I always had the impression that the reason why klingons didn't used much disrupter fire in Ops (nor did Starfleet) was to protect the delicate equipment.

As good an explanation as any. OTOH, Gowron might well have employed "disciplinary units" as his spearheads: the first waves might have been condemned criminals sent in armed with just their swords plus with disruptors that had but one shot in the magazine, and were intended to get killed in the process, or then near-miracuously redeem themselves.

On a variation of that theme, Gowron might have sent his political enemies in first. Fight "honorably" in a suicidal action, or be branded cowardly for refusing and get executed on the spot - excellent options to offer to your naysayers!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dingo]

As good an explanation as any. OTOH, Gowron might well have employed "disciplinary units" as his spearheads: the first waves might have been condemned criminals sent in armed with just their swords plus with disruptors that had but one shot in the magazine, and were intended to get killed in the process, or then near-miracuously redeem themselves.

On a variation of that theme, Gowron might have sent his political enemies in first. Fight "honorably" in a suicidal action, or be branded cowardly for refusing and get executed on the spot - excellent options to offer to your naysayers!

Sounds a lot like the Soviet Penal Battalions of World War II and a nice link to how Roddenberry originally thought the Klingons as Sci-Fi counterparts to the Soviets of his era (though during the '80s they appear to have metamorphosized into a bizzare blend of Janissaries, Samurai, and Norse Berserkers).

 

[Myasishchev]

The episode was overly dramatic and completely dumbed down from a tech perspective which completely ruined it for me.

I thought the episode excelled partly because it wasn't so tech-heavy. Nothing would've killed the drama, emotion, and tragedy of the final gunfight like a photon grenaded re-energized by the stagnant ions within the captured subspace tower.

A major factor in the outcome of the battle was Starfleet ground forces seizing control of invisible Dominion subspace mines.

 

[Cyke101]

The episode was overly dramatic and completely dumbed down from a tech perspective which completely ruined it for me.

I thought the episode excelled partly because it wasn't so tech-heavy. Nothing would've killed the drama, emotion, and tragedy of the final gunfight like a photon grenaded re-energized by the stagnant ions within the captured subspace tower.

A major factor in the outcome of the battle was Starfleet ground forces seizing control of invisible Dominion subspace mines.

Sure, but the mines aren't how the plot was resolved. Really, it was more about Starfleet's tired determination than anything else. Bravery and tragedy in the face of hopelessness, as opposed to technobabble. Hell, Sisko was knocked out (and not by the mines) in order for the story to progress past the heavy fighting. To note, he was physically slammed by a gun, as opposed to getting KO'd by energy beam.

For me, the line "We held, sir. Those were our orders," is a lot more effective than saying "We adjusted our phaser frequencies to ignite key sections of atmospheric disturbance, which in turn dispersed the opposing force." The latter sounds more like Trek, but so much is robbed from saying too much.

 

[Myasishchev]

Well, I can't argue with the sentiment.

 

[Cyke101]

Well, I can't argue with the sentiment.

Normally I back down from topics like this one, but I am such a big fan of sentiment in many of its forms...

 

[Too Much Fun]

Am I the only one here who disliked this episode for being too "un-Trek"? I've read on Memory Alpha that this episode and "In The Pale Moonlight" have been criticized by fans for being so dark that they go against the fundamental optimism and idealism that was the crux of Rodenberry's vision for Star Trek, but I've never read such opinions here. I didn't feel that way about "In The Pale Moonlight" (in that case, my main bone of contention was over-the-top acting, though I liked the episode overall), but I definitely objected to this one on a philosophical basis. I just saw it for the first time and was a little flabbergasted by the fact that a Star Trek episode had such elements as this one. I'm not saying I don't think there should ever be any war or depiction of war and its consequences/hardships in the Star Trek universe (haven't minded any of the Dominon stuff so far, including the many scenes of Sisko talking about casualties), but I thought this one was a bit too much.

I began to feel uncomfortable right at the beginning when we met the guy who was so shell shocked from being holed up in the same place fighting for so long that he'd become extremely grouchy and anti-social. I look back at this thread and see a lot of comments about cliche characters and realize now that part of the reason the character bugged me was because he's such a cliche war archetype, but as I was watching the show, I was just irked by how incredibly out of place such a character seemed in a Star Trek episode.

Same goes for the 'strong, silent' tough guy who was constantly polishing his knife and always surly. I realize now that he's a cliche too, but when watching the show, like the other character he just annoyed me for seeming out of place as someone who clearly walked from some war movie into this Star Trek episode where he doesn't belong.

The only character I really liked was the engineer who was working with Ezri. Thank goodness the writers didn't put those two together romantically. I was dreading that development for the whole episode. That's another cliche, especially in Star Trek - the moment a man and a woman show the slightest bit of fondness for each other, they're thrust into a romantic relationship. I'm so glad the writers had the restraint to keep this bond platonic and have Ezri witness his death without the standard scene of the two speaking sentimental words to each other and kissing as one dies in the other's arms.

So they almost balanced out all the cliches by avoiding one of the most obvious ones they could have made, but not by much. I also think a soldier being maimed during war has no place in Star Trek either, so the Nog stuff irritated me too. Please don't think I'm just squeamish or closed-minded for thinking this way. I've enjoyed plenty of war movies much more gruesome than this episode...I just think Star Trek is not a natural place for such content.

There were a few things I liked in this episode. Other than Ezri's scenes and the other character in them, I also liked Quark's concern for his nephew (went a long way towards expanding Quark from being one-dimensional, which I think he has been for much of the first six seasons), and the nice little "Saving Private Ryan" reference (at least I think it was) with Vic's music playing as the crew prepared for battle. These small details somewhat redeemed the episode for me somewhat, but there were just so many major things that struck me as unnatural and simply wrong for Star Trek in it that I have to consider it a misfire (though a sporadically entertaining and fascinating one) overall.

 

[Myasishchev]

^In short, no.

It's not that such themes don't belong in Trek, only that in this particular case Trek seemed to have little new spin to apply to the old tropes, and I'd just as soon watch Platoon.

The one good part of the episode was Quark's analysis of humanity. That was worthwile.

 

[Anwar]

Thing is, Quark kind of comes off as a hypocrite in his condemnations of humanity since the Ferengi HAVE done things just as bad as the stuff he describes like Slavery and the like. It's not as irritating as Spock's hypocrisy in TOS though.

 

[Myasishchev]

Heh, no. The Ferengi at least seem to be dimly aware that they're interstellar jerks, even if they fetishize it with the RoA. The Vulcans are totally oblivious to it.