StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've found after watching Nemesis that the producers (or whatever) of the show have listened to (some) of the gripes people had about the TNG, Voyager and other movies. The fact that forcefields were placed around the warp core, weapons dispensers and more ergonomic tricorders (the PDA types) show some improvement in the Starfleet's equipment.

What is this BBS's take on the improvements?

Granted they aren't what they should be, but do you think Star Trek is taking a step in the right direction?

I think that you are generalizing based on a small portion of the evidence. While the forcefield protecting the warp core, and the improved phaser ergonomics, were welcome improvements, "Nemesis" also tossed realism out the window in a number of other areas. In particular, the ludicrous Thalaron radiation, Valdore class warbird, boarding operations, and NUMEROUS plot-holes demonstrated to me that while "Nemesis" made some improvements in some areas of realism, they were largely just throwing darts at a board and did not particularly care whether or not the movie was realistic.

Forcefields around the warp core are only slightly less idiotic than no forcefields. What the fuck is wrong with massive armour around the thing?

This is not defense-in-depth. It is basically two forcefields now; one inside the warp core and one outside. You want two DISSIMILAR redundant systems, not two virtually identical ones. Whatever takes out one forcefield can nuke the other one too.

I agree with that, but hell all armor can be negated with explosives, perhaps a combination of force-fields and armor would have been better, but then again the coolness factor wouldn't be as high, and armor isn't exactly Trek's priority I guess.

The phasers look nicer, still... The rifles break in two, now THAT is shoddy engineering Take on tricorders? I liked them, still...

The LCARS systems and graphics for them are improving with every movie, if anything it's another "coolness" gig

The Enterpriser wrote:I agree with that, but hell all armor can be negated with explosives, perhaps a combination of force-fields and armor would have been better, but then again the coolness factor wouldn't be as high, and armor isn't exactly Trek's priority I guess.

Trek's exclusive reliance on forcefields is one of their biggest problems; they rely completely on active systems.

The phasers look nicer, still... The rifles break in two, now THAT is shoddy engineering Take on tricorders? I liked them, still...

The LCARS systems and graphics for them are improving with every movie, if anything it's another "coolness" gig

The GUI is improving, but the rifle is constructed more shoddily; sounds like MBA's are running the show

The Enterpriser wrote:I agree with that, but hell all armor can be negated with explosives, perhaps a combination of force-fields and armor would have been better, but then again the coolness factor wouldn't be as high, and armor isn't exactly Trek's priority I guess.

I think you're missing the point. Armor around the warp core could be defeated by explosives, but the forcefield around the warp core was defeated without even that. To be sure, any amount of protection can eventually be defeated by powerful weapons. Armor is designed to do one thing in combat: buy your side the time it needs to defeat the bad guys. In this case, armor would have been a superior alternative to the forcefield, which was destroyed in the opening moments of Shinzon's attack.

I do understand the point, but even so the forcefields can withstand explosives (so can armor of course), but a critical hit to certain ship systems (eg. force field generators, yes yes, I know they're from main power but sill...) will do that, the reason why those forcefields are put in the first place is in the case of a transporter bomb being sent in the middle of engineering (or something). Granted this is a flawed theory, still, stupdity has to be explained. I agree though armor + forcefields = good idea

One more plus with Trek

Sparks!!!! Yey sparks! I know we saw this in Insurrection but it's nice to see continuity, although I fail to understand how sparks occur near the warp reactor, I didn't get the idea it was used to produce electricity...

Actually, armour would be much more difficult to defeat with explosives than force fields. When Data, O'Brien, and Troi were possessed and took control of Ten Forward, a concussion explosive that was not expected to injure anyone would have knocked out their forcefield, and Data was able to take out a forcefield by simply damaging the circuits on the wall next to it. And finally, we know that certain dense metals cannot be transported through, while many methods of marching through forcefields have been used.

Bah! I never watched that TNG episode Yeah, well the more one thinks about it the stupider it gets... Why didn't they just coat the ship with some kelvanite??? Or maybe just critical ship locations? I mean how hard can it be to get some materials which can do it (or for that matter generators which emit ECM?)

It's a bit simple, lacing rooms with kelvanite might be a good idea, it should be a relatively easy material since it's so readily identified in Insurrection. But then again Trek was never simple (or logical).

The Enterpriser wrote:I agree with that, but hell all armor can be negated with explosives, perhaps a combination of force-fields and armor would have been better, but then again the coolness factor wouldn't be as high, and armor isn't exactly Trek's priority I guess.

The point is that armour would offer more reliable protection in a battle. While explosives could defeat armour, you seem to be discussing a scenario which would require either a sabotage team to actually get to the engineering spaces or an attempt to transport a bomb next to the core. You address that possibility, but it must be remembered that TNG has demonstrated numerous times how easily transporters can be blocked by dense enough materials or electromagnetic fields, and that sensors can be confused even by planetary magnetic fields. If you wanted to offer protection aganst transporting a bomb, a powerful magnetic current should be sufficent to defeat a transporter.

In any case, this is a moot possibility in most battle situations, since transporters are inhibited by a starship's own deflector shields. It is remotely possible providing that you set up the right conditions for a specialised attempt (as O'Brien does in "The Wounded"), but it's far more economical in terms of effort to simply concentrate on pounding down the enemy ship's defences.

A forcefield can be turned off, but a door is forever... You know I swear they could put a basketball court in the engineering section. You have to wonder about Starfleet. Do they love those weird pretty lights in a warp core so much that never cover them up? Nevermind that, just what is that supposed to be inside the warp core? Disco lights?

You mean that forcefield that lasted what? 8 seconds? GREAT improvement. The new guns suck shit.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:You mean that forcefield that lasted what? 8 seconds? GREAT improvement. The new guns suck shit.

Closer to five. And I believe the ship had its normal shielding up on top of it.

The Enterpriser wrote:I've found after watching Nemesis that the producers (or whatever) of the show have listened to (some) of the gripes people had about the TNG, Voyager and other movies. The fact that forcefields were placed around the warp core, weapons dispensers and more ergonomic tricorders (the PDA types) show some improvement in the Starfleet's equipment.

Paramount is just applying a new coat of paint to the walls and hoping that no one will notice that the structure has termites and the foundation is crumbling.

To little, too late.