This is just promising Charly you won't do anything bad to his pet mouse.
what exactly are 'Evasive Manueavers'?
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
This is just promising Charly you won't do anything bad to his pet mouse.
Unless the pre-programmed patterns specifically say "move around in random directions!"
Wow that was intense. I'm sitting at home in front of a computer and my adrenaline's going.
The two are hardly incompatible though, it's entirely possible to follow a general evasive pattern whilst incorporating small random movements to further reduce the attackers hit ratio.
The pattern may be described in broad strokes as (for instance) "draw less maneuverable opponent closer then use his momentum to make a dash for the weakly covered rear easier" or "maintain strafing distance to avoid point defense weaponry and sweep out to the flanks", which covers the "move away from high danger areas" whilst the helmsman uses the randomised small movements to limit the impact and success of whatever firepower the opponent can still bring to bear.
I'd imagine a lot of the patterns we see described possibly deal with particular preplanned scenarios which take into account the relative mobility of both ships and their fields of fire.
For instance when facing a Negh'var (vast forward firepower, low maneuverability) in a mid size federation vessel (wide fields of fire, relatively high maneuverability) one might choose to avoid the frontal batteries at all costs, so making a darting pass for the stern of the attacker would make sense and constantly attempting to maintain that relative position afterwards.
Against a BoP (highly maneuverable with forward concentrated mid level weapons) such a strategy might not be possible but one might choose to rotate the facings available to the opponent in order to best even out shield damage whilst making use of the (typically) omnidirectional nature of phasers.
Given a faster but less well armed/shielded federation vessel one might choose to present one's stern and utilise randomised weaving maneuvers whilst steadily retreating so as to constantly make targeting difficult, times to impact longer, angular variation for a given maneuver greater and relative projectile velocity lower.
In other words the exact nature of evasive maneuvers (and thus the pattern chosen) might vary between scenarios. Whether a particular pattern is very specific (make these precise moves) or more generalised (attempt to achieve this goal using theses strategies), I'd have to suggest the latter, but in any case we know from on screen evidence that randomised movements are in fact utilised (watch how the Defiant is regularly handled) especially by smaller vessels for whom the value and practicality would obviously be greater.
The pattern may be described in broad strokes as (for instance) "draw less maneuverable opponent closer then use his momentum to make a dash for the weakly covered rear easier" or "maintain strafing distance to avoid point defense weaponry and sweep out to the flanks", which covers the "move away from high danger areas" whilst the helmsman uses the randomised small movements to limit the impact and success of whatever firepower the opponent can still bring to bear.
I'd imagine a lot of the patterns we see described possibly deal with particular preplanned scenarios which take into account the relative mobility of both ships and their fields of fire.
For instance when facing a Negh'var (vast forward firepower, low maneuverability) in a mid size federation vessel (wide fields of fire, relatively high maneuverability) one might choose to avoid the frontal batteries at all costs, so making a darting pass for the stern of the attacker would make sense and constantly attempting to maintain that relative position afterwards.
Against a BoP (highly maneuverable with forward concentrated mid level weapons) such a strategy might not be possible but one might choose to rotate the facings available to the opponent in order to best even out shield damage whilst making use of the (typically) omnidirectional nature of phasers.
Given a faster but less well armed/shielded federation vessel one might choose to present one's stern and utilise randomised weaving maneuvers whilst steadily retreating so as to constantly make targeting difficult, times to impact longer, angular variation for a given maneuver greater and relative projectile velocity lower.
In other words the exact nature of evasive maneuvers (and thus the pattern chosen) might vary between scenarios. Whether a particular pattern is very specific (make these precise moves) or more generalised (attempt to achieve this goal using theses strategies), I'd have to suggest the latter, but in any case we know from on screen evidence that randomised movements are in fact utilised (watch how the Defiant is regularly handled) especially by smaller vessels for whom the value and practicality would obviously be greater.
Last edited:
The trouble with evasive maneuvers is that real evasive maneuvers would involve rapidly changing direction faster than the eye can track. That doesn't look good on the screen. So instead evasive maneuvers are always just banking slowly to the left.
The other trouble, perhaps stemming from the above conceit, is that evading never seems to help.
Yes, we can argue that the heroes would be hit even more badly if they didn't evade, with bigger guns, for more of the time. But (outside Mirror Universes) no amount of maneuvering allows them to actually avoid being hit altogether, or even dodge any of the shots shown, which makes it difficult for the audience to see worth in the evasion.
Timo Saloniemi
Yes, we can argue that the heroes would be hit even more badly if they didn't evade, with bigger guns, for more of the time. But (outside Mirror Universes) no amount of maneuvering allows them to actually avoid being hit altogether, or even dodge any of the shots shown, which makes it difficult for the audience to see worth in the evasion.
Timo Saloniemi
We do, although with beam weapons it's uncommon compared to disruptor shots or projectiles. An example that springs to mind is Generations (I just watched it) where we repeatedly see the BoP missing the E by mere metres as she desperately arcs to evade their fire. There are, however, many such examples, along with examples of ships positioning themselves behind, beside, below or otherwise outside an attacker's field of fire. Most notably would be the many times we see the Defiant all but scraping the paintof much larger vessels to prevent becoming a target.
However, if we take your premise as a given and turn it on it's head, what is not shown on screen (by definition) are the shots which were never fired. The shots which were never feasible because the target ship steered clear of the danger zones altogether. If it is standard practise to use such high energy maneuvers then they must have value else crews would be better served sitting tight and saving power for shields and weapons.
However, if we take your premise as a given and turn it on it's head, what is not shown on screen (by definition) are the shots which were never fired. The shots which were never feasible because the target ship steered clear of the danger zones altogether. If it is standard practise to use such high energy maneuvers then they must have value else crews would be better served sitting tight and saving power for shields and weapons.
The Enterprise D took evasive manueavers in Generations and at one point the weapons fire from the Bird of Prey goes flying threw the gaps between the dorsal fin and the nacelles. To me that's part of the plus side of a design like that: spots enemy weapons fire can accidently pass through, sparing you direct hits. As apposed to a single clump like Voyager or the Defiant.
And even better evasive manueaver, in my opinion, would be -- the situation allowing, to simply go to warp before the warp nacelles are hit and outrun the enemy, as we've seen most of the enemies can't go as fast as the Enterprise D nor sustain it for as long (I think Geordi once said at full possible warp, the Enterprise can go for twelve hours before having to power down).
And even better evasive manueaver, in my opinion, would be -- the situation allowing, to simply go to warp before the warp nacelles are hit and outrun the enemy, as we've seen most of the enemies can't go as fast as the Enterprise D nor sustain it for as long (I think Geordi once said at full possible warp, the Enterprise can go for twelve hours before having to power down).
"I'm issuing an order now to make it appear I'm thinking tactically, but we're really just going to sit here because the plot demands we die in the most rapid way possible."
We should note that Klingon BoP guns apparently are supposed to operate on a spray'n'pray principle - even completely stationary targets are engaged by "walking" the hail of disruptor bolts. Apparently, there's no cost involved in missing with the first few shots.
Yet how often does that happen (outside the MU), really? There's lots of that against the Lakota, and it doesn't seem to be helping any: there's always an emitter that will get the heroes coming and going, no lull in the fire from Benteen's ship.
With Dominion behemoths, the hero ship just tends to zoom past them as quickly as possibly, rather than engaging or otherwise lingering. The Valiant chooses otherwise, to her detriment.
Indeed. Although the average rate of fire from hero ships is surprisingly low in the general case, even when there's no maneuvering in evidence. Perhaps there are other limiting factors there that in practice make maneuvering a superfluous exercise?
Timo Saloniemi
It's difficult to know where to go here short of spending hours google searching videos of evasive maneuvers. The franchise is full of instances where combatant ships maneuver around each other and some portion of the enemy fire misses or certain weapons become useless due to the target being out of their firing arc.
The generations example is so clear as to barely warrant belief you would dispute it. The BoP fires where the E is and her swinging arc takes her just out of the firing line in time. How more absolutely clear an example could be needed I don't know. She made a maneuver under fire. Had she stayed still she would have been hit. She avoided the shot because of her movement. No matter how much the Klingon's strafing tactics rely on "spray and pray" that was one less impact on the hull and thus less damage inflicted, as a direct result of evasive maneuvers.
Virtually any of the the Dominion War engagements show similar examples, including instances where the Captain is explicit in the dialogue exactly HOW to maneuver and we then see the ship follow exactly those instructions. (Ramirez and the Valiant spring to mind, moving inside the Dominion ships firing arcs). Sisko uses the Defiant in similar ways on numerous occasions and BoPs are also regularly seen.weaving between vessels and getting to their rear areas.
The classic example of evasive maneuvers being effective would be the Romulan drone ship where targeting became virtually impossible, no mention was made by the OP of the maneuvers being carried out by manned ships.
As for liming factors the drone ship is probably telling, it could maneuver in ways a "normal" ship could not two hundred years later, implying limitations to the inertial dampers affecting crew safety. Energy allocation would also likely be a factor, dramatically swinging multi million ton lumps of metal around is doubtless costly and must be moderated to some extent given the need to power weapons and shields. It's doubtful that tactical systems used under combat conditions would use much less than the ships total energy output else one would have to call them inadequate in the first instance.
The generations example is so clear as to barely warrant belief you would dispute it. The BoP fires where the E is and her swinging arc takes her just out of the firing line in time. How more absolutely clear an example could be needed I don't know. She made a maneuver under fire. Had she stayed still she would have been hit. She avoided the shot because of her movement. No matter how much the Klingon's strafing tactics rely on "spray and pray" that was one less impact on the hull and thus less damage inflicted, as a direct result of evasive maneuvers.
Virtually any of the the Dominion War engagements show similar examples, including instances where the Captain is explicit in the dialogue exactly HOW to maneuver and we then see the ship follow exactly those instructions. (Ramirez and the Valiant spring to mind, moving inside the Dominion ships firing arcs). Sisko uses the Defiant in similar ways on numerous occasions and BoPs are also regularly seen.weaving between vessels and getting to their rear areas.
The classic example of evasive maneuvers being effective would be the Romulan drone ship where targeting became virtually impossible, no mention was made by the OP of the maneuvers being carried out by manned ships.
As for liming factors the drone ship is probably telling, it could maneuver in ways a "normal" ship could not two hundred years later, implying limitations to the inertial dampers affecting crew safety. Energy allocation would also likely be a factor, dramatically swinging multi million ton lumps of metal around is doubtless costly and must be moderated to some extent given the need to power weapons and shields. It's doubtful that tactical systems used under combat conditions would use much less than the ships total energy output else one would have to call them inadequate in the first instance.
There are some patterns to the efficiency of evasion vs. targeting. Federation beams cannot miss; nor can Klingon or Romulan beams outside the "Way of the Warrior" tractor beam trick. Klingon bursts of bolts, as well as their Defiant counterparts, typically don't connect except for a select few of the bolts in the burst, regardless of maneuvering. Dominion beams often miss, perhaps because of the fact that they are mechanically steered (as per "The Ship"); this requires the target to maneuver. 22nd century UESF beams sometimes miss, even against targets other than the Romulan drone, suggesting targeting system evolution is relevant at least until a certain threshold level is reached.
No doubt evasion helps in some fashion or it wouldn't exist as a concept. But blind spots in weapons coverage are a rarity - even the tiny Starfleet attack fighters can fire to their six with a fully steerable bow emitter. It becomes a bit difficult to understand, then, why Klingons would opt for ships that deliberately introduce the ability to miss (that is, boresight or near-boresight guns). But again it's probably a matter of tradeoffs, with bow guns having more oomph than the same weight of multidirectionals.
Timo Saloniemi
No doubt evasion helps in some fashion or it wouldn't exist as a concept. But blind spots in weapons coverage are a rarity - even the tiny Starfleet attack fighters can fire to their six with a fully steerable bow emitter. It becomes a bit difficult to understand, then, why Klingons would opt for ships that deliberately introduce the ability to miss (that is, boresight or near-boresight guns). But again it's probably a matter of tradeoffs, with bow guns having more oomph than the same weight of multidirectionals.
Timo Saloniemi
Typical evasive maneuvers that have been well established in air combat include:
The Immelmann - developed by German ace Max Immelmann in World War One. With an enemy pursuing behind you, pull up, do a half loop. Roll level at the top, now going to opposite direction. After passing over the enemy, roll upside down and do the back half of the loop. If the enemy plane has not maneuvered himself, you will now be behind him. Shoot him.
The split-S - with an enemy behind you, suddenly roll upside-down and pull the stick into your gut, pulling into an inverted half loop, and end up below the enemy going in the opposite direction. You may now de-ass the area, or go around for a try at him.
The snap-roll - a sudden snap of the stick and rudder to make your airplane whip into a straight-ahead spiral or corkscrew maneuver. Hopefully the pursuing enemy is goaded into trying to follow. You can do a couple of rotations, then suddenly pull away to the left or right, hoping the enemy has guessed wrong about which way you're going. Or it can be followed with a split-S for additional confusion.
The rolling scissors - basically a long continuous barrel roll. The enemy plane will try to follow and get his sights on you. As the two of you roll around each other, you try to arrange it so he overshoots, and you end up behind him. Shoot him.
Turning INTO the enemy - Sometimes trying to turn away, which the enemy expects, will put you right into his sights. Turning toward him can screw up the geometry of his attack envelope - maybe putting you out of the parameters for his missiles to lock, or requiring him to turn tighter than his plane is capable of to follow you.
The Immelmann - developed by German ace Max Immelmann in World War One. With an enemy pursuing behind you, pull up, do a half loop. Roll level at the top, now going to opposite direction. After passing over the enemy, roll upside down and do the back half of the loop. If the enemy plane has not maneuvered himself, you will now be behind him. Shoot him.
The split-S - with an enemy behind you, suddenly roll upside-down and pull the stick into your gut, pulling into an inverted half loop, and end up below the enemy going in the opposite direction. You may now de-ass the area, or go around for a try at him.
The snap-roll - a sudden snap of the stick and rudder to make your airplane whip into a straight-ahead spiral or corkscrew maneuver. Hopefully the pursuing enemy is goaded into trying to follow. You can do a couple of rotations, then suddenly pull away to the left or right, hoping the enemy has guessed wrong about which way you're going. Or it can be followed with a split-S for additional confusion.
The rolling scissors - basically a long continuous barrel roll. The enemy plane will try to follow and get his sights on you. As the two of you roll around each other, you try to arrange it so he overshoots, and you end up behind him. Shoot him.
Turning INTO the enemy - Sometimes trying to turn away, which the enemy expects, will put you right into his sights. Turning toward him can screw up the geometry of his attack envelope - maybe putting you out of the parameters for his missiles to lock, or requiring him to turn tighter than his plane is capable of to follow you.
In one of the comic book stories, the Captain ordered a "360 degree turn." That might accomplish something!
The coordinate system used in Trek has 720 degrees split across two axes, so that might just be vague rather than silly.
I recall an episode where something was being shot up from or at a planet that they needed to shoot down, but it was small and Worf said it would take something like twelve or so seconds (give or take) to lock on and fire. I recall it wasn't very big. So obviously is a ship is constantly manueavering, it must be difficult to get a lock and his the ship, especially if smaller or a smaller profile angle.
Then in TNG we've also heard Worf or others say they've almost in phaser range, implying the beams must disappate rather quickly and lose effective power, so you have to be closer to the target to hit it, so evasive manueavers could also mean the Enterprise is simply trying to get out of the enemy's phaser range to reduce damange when hit or even miss a hit, sometimes.
Then in TNG we've also heard Worf or others say they've almost in phaser range, implying the beams must disappate rather quickly and lose effective power, so you have to be closer to the target to hit it, so evasive manueavers could also mean the Enterprise is simply trying to get out of the enemy's phaser range to reduce damange when hit or even miss a hit, sometimes.
So, the ol' 360 might signal 180 around and 180 over, inverting the ship and pointing it in the opposite direction? Might be used in reaction to a sneak attack.
Or possibly any combination that adds up to 360, hence the vagueness. This is pure, unabashed rationalization, of course.
Similar threads
