and you are suggesting that this is the case the instances we've seen with ships firing and HITTING each other while at warp? just how far does this warp bubble extend from the ship?
To survive a space battle, what is more important
- Thread starter Luckyflux
- Start date
Ships at warp were never displayed at a great distance from each other on TV.
A ship at a distance of 300 000 km would not even be visible (apart from registering on sensors and possible zooming on the bridge main view screen ... but we are mainly talking about external shots).
What we saw on TV was the 'cool' factor and ships were almost always within a spitting distance of one another.
Phasers were never stated to be FTL weapons and also have been noted to have a maximum effective range of 300 000 km.
At most times, they were showed being fired at very short ranges at the target (which accounts for them being fired inside the warp fields that merge) or never at all.
Torpedoes on the other hand are FTL weapons, and they never travel that far to reach their target, so they can have ample amount of fuel for the very short trip while retaining their native explosive yield.
As for what Christopher wrote and me apparently failing to understand what he said ...
What defines the weapons range ?
Simple.
Take 2 opposing SF ships for example.
If both ships are at sublight (most battles were showed as such anyway) and if both are within their respective phaser range (which would be 300 000 km), neither would be able to avoid each others phaser shots because the speeds at which the ships move is too slow to do that (unless they are 600 000 km from each other, in which case torpedoes would probably be used as phasers would be ineffective at such a large range).
Torpedoes (if programed to reach their target at high Warp speeds) wouldn't be avoidable at all if the targets are at sublight.
So basically, the ship that would win would essentially be the one with either superior firepower or the one with the smarter/experienced crew ... or possibly the one that fires first.
The only viable battle where phasers and torpedoes might be avoidable is warp combat (I'm talking about the maneuvers that Kirk pulled off in TOS and not regular fighting of ships that are in Warp).
A ship at a distance of 300 000 km would not even be visible (apart from registering on sensors and possible zooming on the bridge main view screen ... but we are mainly talking about external shots).
What we saw on TV was the 'cool' factor and ships were almost always within a spitting distance of one another.
Phasers were never stated to be FTL weapons and also have been noted to have a maximum effective range of 300 000 km.
At most times, they were showed being fired at very short ranges at the target (which accounts for them being fired inside the warp fields that merge) or never at all.
Torpedoes on the other hand are FTL weapons, and they never travel that far to reach their target, so they can have ample amount of fuel for the very short trip while retaining their native explosive yield.
As for what Christopher wrote and me apparently failing to understand what he said ...
What defines the weapons range ?
Simple.
Take 2 opposing SF ships for example.
If both ships are at sublight (most battles were showed as such anyway) and if both are within their respective phaser range (which would be 300 000 km), neither would be able to avoid each others phaser shots because the speeds at which the ships move is too slow to do that (unless they are 600 000 km from each other, in which case torpedoes would probably be used as phasers would be ineffective at such a large range).
Torpedoes (if programed to reach their target at high Warp speeds) wouldn't be avoidable at all if the targets are at sublight.
So basically, the ship that would win would essentially be the one with either superior firepower or the one with the smarter/experienced crew ... or possibly the one that fires first.
The only viable battle where phasers and torpedoes might be avoidable is warp combat (I'm talking about the maneuvers that Kirk pulled off in TOS and not regular fighting of ships that are in Warp).
I don't recall a maximum effective range ever being mentioned on screen. I concede to the comment by "Fire" that the ships are not actually moving, but this and your own post fail to explain the situations where we DO see ships at warp firing phasers and hitting each other.
We've seen ships at warp slug it out while separated by what looks like a couple of seconds of chase separation - hence possibly a couple of lightweeks or lightmonths, depending on how fast the camera is moving with the ships. In sublight battles, the ranges are in the order of a few dozen kilometers at best, visually, or in the tens of thousands of kilometers, verbally.
Yet in TNG "The Wounded", the Cardassian ship opens fire at 300,000 klicks exactly, and the subsequent dialogue suggests that this is their maximum weapons range. And supposedly, the Cardassian vessel is armed with beam weapons similar to Starfleet phasers.
It still remains true that no Starfleet vessel has fired phasers at 300,000 kilometers, that we'd know of.
Timo Saloniemi
Yet in TNG "The Wounded", the Cardassian ship opens fire at 300,000 klicks exactly, and the subsequent dialogue suggests that this is their maximum weapons range. And supposedly, the Cardassian vessel is armed with beam weapons similar to Starfleet phasers.
It still remains true that no Starfleet vessel has fired phasers at 300,000 kilometers, that we'd know of.
Timo Saloniemi
Its either going to be
speed and firepower
or
firepower and shielding
For a small ship Id go with the first one, for a bigger ship the second, although a ship like Defiant obviously has all 3 but a ship like a Battlestar from BSG has thick armour and powerfull weapons
speed and firepower
or
firepower and shielding
For a small ship Id go with the first one, for a bigger ship the second, although a ship like Defiant obviously has all 3 but a ship like a Battlestar from BSG has thick armour and powerfull weapons
If it "balanced things out," she'd lose often as not, or at least on occasion, wouldn't she?
The series grew rapidly tiresome because, despite his skills, Weber writes Harrington entirely too much with a "Golly, ain't she special and swell?" vibe. I'd like to see her fail spectacularly at something, and then struggle to resurrect her career afterwards. He's made her the perfect character to bring down with a fall like "lightning from Heaven," in my opinion. Now that might be worth reading.
Back on topic.
I think this debate boils down to "speed of plot." Any of these elements can be the deciding factor depending on the screenwriter's intent.
Similar threads
