ST weapon accuracy and range

[Ted C]

Of course, being AT warp doesnt neccesarily mean that a ship has to stay at warp I'm pretty sure we have examples (the aforementioned Picard manuver) that show that it is possible to make very very short warp hops very quickly, so I would imagine that you could have a starship that moves linearly at warp a short distance, drops out of warp to manuver, jumps into warp again, etc. It wouldn't necesarily be EASY to do (you'd need automation or a well drilled crew I bet, with lots of practice) but it should be doable. In that sense it would be a bit like Lensmanverse Inertialess drive.

The problem here is the freighter. Unless it's taken completely by surprise (and why WOULDN'T the Cardassian ship in the area notify it that it was the target of an attack?), then it's captain would be a complete fool not go to warp.

• Running at warp at least gives more time for the Cardassian warship to destroy or delay the Federation ship.
• A ship chasing at warp will have less power available to put into weapons.
• Torpedos launched at it will take slightly longer to reach it, giving more time for countermeasures.

Everything about this situation says that the freighter should be at warp speed, the Phoenix moving at warp to catch it, and the Cardassian warship moving at warp to intercept.

[Ted C]

And is there supposed to be a second Cardassian ship? (Have mercy-I haven't seen that episode in ages).

There are two Cardassian ships: a warship and a supply ship. The supply ship shows no range circles.

Another explanation I've advanced for the "out of range" statement is related to motion. If we assume the Cardassian ship is chasing the Phoenix, then the Phoenix is running away from any torpedoes it fires, increasing their flight time to the target. Increase it enough, and the "sustainer engine" may give out before the torpedo reaches the target. Meanwhile, the Cardassian is running toward any torpedos fired by the Phoenix, decreasing their flight time. It's possible that the difference in time that a torpedo has to spend actually propelling itself toward the target accounts for the "out of range" situation, with the mapped circles only indicating weapons range for ships that are effectively "at rest".

[Ted C]

The image above could conceivably be a image of the phoenix outside the weapons ranges of the opposing ship by being below and/or behind it but the limitations of using a 2D display is incapable of showing such.

With only three targets being tracked, it would be simple enough to display all of them in a single plane, which would be the most useful view for the Enterprise crew observing the battle. There's no reason that any ship on the screen should be "above or below" any of the others on the z-axis. If they are, the viewscreen programmers are incompetent.

[Paula42]

The image above could conceivably be a image of the phoenix outside the weapons ranges of the opposing ship by being below and/or behind it but the limitations of using a 2D display is incapable of showing such.

With only three targets being tracked, it would be simple enough to display all of them in a single plane, which would be the most useful view for the Enterprise crew observing the battle. There's no reason that any ship on the screen should be "above or below" any of the others on the z-axis. If they are, the view-screen programmers are incompetent.

It seems to me that a 2D image like we see is a poor way to show a fight that includes maneuvering in 3D and as such it is likely the ranges we see are dependant on position so it is quite reasonable to say that a ship can look like its inside a ring but be outside firing range, it is also supported by the fact that the stars we see in the back ground would be within range of the ships weapons if it was so simplistically interpreted.

With that in mind id say its a simplistic visual aid they likely used due to the presence of the cardassians and the fact they promised openness in regards to sharing info and that there is other information off screen that factors in orientation and position that they did not feel the need to include on the viewer.

[Purple]

Since the freighter is largely insignificant for the display at hand (since the screen is a weapons range indicator) the most logical thing would be to draw a line through the cardasian and federation war ships and place the horizontal plane along that line.

If any of the ships moves up or down along the Z axis the entire image will rotate it's horizontal plane to reflect the relative range.

After all, if you want to present accurate ranges that is what you will do. And that is the simplest way to get a 3D image on to a 2D plane without inaccuracy. Pretty much what Ted C said but in plain English.

There is no such thing as an absolute coordinate system in space.

[darthy]

Missiles on star trek have no known upper limit. Dreadnought from voyager episode "Dreadnought", the smart bomb from episode "Warhead", and in DS9 episode "Blaze of Glory" there were fears of alleged cloaked missles that were going to hit cardassia in 13 days after their launch.

As far as hand weapons go, the TR116 with the micro transporter addon from DS9 episode "Field of Fire" looked pretty good to me. I liked that guns ability to see into anyone's quarters on the station without them knowing (a peeping tom's dream come true). That weapons ability to kill is similar to the Tantalus field from TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror": Push a button and they die, doesn't matter where they are.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Darthy, you've made 6 posts so far, and most of them have been necros. I would suggest (And I'm not trying to be a backseat mod here, it's a suggestion) that you avoid posting in threads that have been quite for longer than about a week. Otherwise the mods might oppress you.

[Ted C]

Missiles on star trek have no known upper limit. Dreadnought from voyager episode "Dreadnought", the smart bomb from episode "Warhead", and in DS9 episode "Blaze of Glory" there were fears of alleged cloaked missles that were going to hit cardassia in 13 days after their launch.

Ah, a "no limits" claim. But photon torpedos used at warp speed unquestionably will have an upper limit on how long they can stay at warp. When the "warp sustainer engine" runs out of fuel, the missile will drop to sublights speed, at which it can keep drifting indefinitely, but uselessly. The other examples are irrelevant to this situation.

As far as hand weapons go, the TR116 with the micro transporter addon from DS9 episode "Field of Fire" looked pretty good to me. I liked that guns ability to see into anyone's quarters on the station without them knowing (a peeping tom's dream come true). That weapons ability to kill is similar to the Tantalus field from TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror": Push a button and they die, doesn't matter where they are.

How "non sequitur" can you get?

[Connor MacLeod]

There's also voyager where Paris mentions that stuff at FTL (when at warp) cannot manuver. So your FTL torpedoes become effectively line of sight weapons. If the range is short enough that might not matter as far as reaction time goes, but that's entirely up for debate.

It's also quite possible that torpedoes at FTL are going to weigh almost nothing, and would bounce off shields if they impact. We know warp fields reduce mass (akin to a Lensmanverse inertialess drive) so at best you're going to get proximity hits.

And weve seen that transporters can be blocked by varying things (Electricity and gravity, for example) Or just by denying them sensor information.

[Connor MacLeod]

That interpretation is without a doubt wrong though - we see ships maneuver at warp on several occasions.

Yes we have, but we've also seen that you can go at or below the speed of light whilst at warp. The idea in voyager (as I recall) is that its impossible to manuver whilse FTL.

I'd guess if they manuver they decelerate to at or below c, manuver, then acceperate up to FTL as well. That actually fits with the TOS examples of "Warp Strafing" gone over so often too, since IIRC they were effectively STL whilst at warp.

[Batman]

Well there's turning, and there's turning hard. While ships absolutely can change course at Warp, IIRC they tend to do so rather sedately. I always imagined the 'faster than light, no left or right' to work the same way turning works for high supersonic aircraft like the Blackbird. You can turn. You just have to accept a turn radius that intrudes on the airspace of several nations if you do it over Europe.

Not that I see why that is relevant to photon torpedoes. To my knowledge we never see them change course FTL (heck I can't recall a time we see them change course outside TUC period) and even if they can do it, that ability will eventually go away because they don't have infinite fuel. So while they might have theoretically infinite range, for the vast majority of it they will also be ballistic and inert (and that's assuming they don't simply self-destruct when antimatter containment fails) and thus essentially useless.

[Darth Tedious]

Yes. I prefer to think of range not as "how far can it go?" but "how far is it still useful in battle?"

An interesting piece of this is the range of a weapon depends on the target. You can't say "phasers have a 300km range" in general. You could say "they are effective against shuttles for 3000km but only 300km against capships" or whatever though.

That would be consistant with how weapon ranges are measured in RL.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This is the only example I know of, of torpedoes being fired forwards at warp speed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DWd2_crz78

As for range, I suspect that it's regarded as purely the distance between the 2 ships since much of the torpedoes' kinetic energy and momentum is coming from the firing ship (Voyager in this case), as opposed to the actual distance the torpedo travels between firing and impact given it's being fired at warp. I can see how trektards might attempt to use the latter to inflate ST weapon ranges

[TOSDOC]

Janeway: "Tom, what's the first thing they teach you about maneuvering at warp?"
Tom: "'Faster than light, no left or right.' When possible, maintain a linear trajectory. Course corrections could fracture the hull."
Janeway: "Exactly. We'd have to drop to impulse every time we made a course change."

(Actually, the author there - I think that's Darkstar's site - lists a number of examples of turning at warp! I don't think there's any indication that they slow down for any of them.)


There's two important points there:

1) it is possible to turn, but not recommended

and 2) this is the "first thing" they teach - probably a simplified rule to make it easier for the students. This is deflated a bit by Janeway's response, but perhaps she just wants to play it extra safe considering that they are stranded and there's no possibility of a tow home if the shit hits the fan.

Well there's turning, and there's turning hard. While ships absolutely can change course at Warp, IIRC they tend to do so rather sedately. I always imagined the 'faster than light, no left or right' to work the same way turning works for high supersonic aircraft like the Blackbird. You can turn. You just have to accept a turn radius that intrudes on the airspace of several nations if you do it over Europe.

This is why I hate hearing about the new series--they keep ignoring what could be done in TOS. Kirk has the Enterprise pivoting at Warp 2 in "Elaan of Troyius". Can you imagine the torsional stresses created just by spinning the ship on a given center of rotation at FTL speeds? If that doesn't "fracture the hull" compared to a simple course correction, I don't know what will. Yet 80 years before Voyager, Scotty doesn't even take the time to protest that they'll "blow apart" performing such a maneuver compared to all the other times when they're merely traveling linearly at Warp 8. This tells me he didn't have a problem with the nacelles coming off suddenly with this less than sedate pivot.

Banking starships special effects look pretty, but I'll take pivoting at FTL any day of the week. Oh, and I didn't say "Strafe".

[Connor MacLeod]

That's unlikely too. First example that comes to mind is "The Wounded" where the Phoenix veered off while the Enterprise was escorting it home. If they slowed below FTL, they would have fallen behind the Enterprise before turning.

Here's the full quote from this site: http://www.st-v-sw.net/BoB/bobSTSWwarpturn.html

Janeway: "Tom, what's the first thing they teach you about maneuvering at warp?"
Tom: "'Faster than light, no left or right.' When possible, maintain a linear trajectory. Course corrections could fracture the hull."
Janeway: "Exactly. We'd have to drop to impulse every time we made a course change."

(Actually, the author there - I think that's Darkstar's site - lists a number of examples of turning at warp! I don't think there's any indication that they slow down for any of them.)

YEah it is Darkstar's site, but I'm not sure I want to read that. I burned out on reading Darkstar's lengthy rebuttals over on SB and here long ago.

There's two important points there:

1) it is possible to turn, but not recommended

and 2) this is the "first thing" they teach - probably a simplified rule to make it easier for the students. This is deflated a bit by Janeway's response, but perhaps she just wants to play it extra safe considering that they are stranded and there's no possibility of a tow home if the shit hits the fan.

The thing is, I don't think you can really "prove" it just using single examples, or even multiple examples. Warp strafing has been argued about for years now, mainly because a certain segment of Trekdom thinks it would be the unbeatable, game-winning weapon that lets then win the vs debates, while segments of the Warsdom seek to deny it fro that same purpose. And both sides have made arguments for or against it with the available evidence, with no real resolution. Hell, there are lots of problems I can think of (Ted brought up an example with the Wounded in this very debate with regard to the "traveling at warp" bit and the stated range. I mean, unless Federation humans have superhuman reaction times, or the combat ranges for warp starshisp is multi-aU ranges or they are moving at very very low warp factors, it seems that there is even greater room for conflict.)

That leads me to conclude that you'd have to pick one interpretation over the other, and ignore the evidence supporting the other side. The question is, how does one do that without looking as if one is cherry picking? I would, in fact, prefer not to dismiss one idea over the other. What I would do, however, is throw out the "unbeatable, game-winning" tactic idea, because that IMHO causes the problems. Hence the idea of "non-FTL warp travel/manuvering." And I will admit, its probably still an imperfect solution and there are problems, but I don't think it's unworkable either. As long as something is not "explicitly stated" or "explicitly denied", there's wiggle room to make things work. It may not fit with how we intended it or how it may have been intended onscreen, but it works. And it saves a hell of alot of argument and nitpicking over definitions, dialogue, and whatnot which I find personally tiresome after awhile.

If there is a better option to simply dismissing one side in favor of the other or my option, though, I'm all ears.

[Connor MacLeod]

Oh hell, I'm not so attached to the idea that I MUST totally deny any possibility of turning while at FTL. I think my idea would still work even allowing for the idea that the Paris statement still indicates turning at FTL is possible (but it being risky does still mean that its unlikely they do it routinely, except perhaps in emergencies, or unless they have a really skilled pilot.), and since its probably not an absolute safe/not safe threshhold, there are probably varying degrees of risks depending on diffrent factors such as how fast you are going (I'd bet turning at lower warp speeds is safer than turning at higher, relatively speaking. Also, its not as if being possible is the same thing as being routinely done.)

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think we discussed this in a previous thread DXIII. Something like there is a trend for sciFi warship firepower to get lower and lower as effects get better.

In the bad old days the msot you could do was show a hit ship dissapear in a flash of light. Hence, vaporisded, so massive energy levels. These days, you can show ships shooting parts of each other like in nBSG, so much lower yields. Also, the trend away from rayguns to projectile weapons, either physical (BSG) or "energy bolt" things like SG staff cannons.

[Batman]

Targeting specific subsystems only goes so far. We're talking 10s of thousands of kilometres to ls ranges vs maybe single km ranges in TNG+, even when they're shooting to kill. I think this is one aspect where improving SFX technology bites visual SciFi in the ass: the vast majority of the audience, not really comprehending the distances involved, expects to be able to see all involved parties in a space battle, because that way it's more exciting, because unlike us, they don't give a rat's ass whether it is realistic or not. B5 managed to strike a tolerable compromise on occasion by showing the firing ship and then cutting to the target being hit, but even they had an awful amount of stupidly close-range fighting.

[Ted C]

To my knowledge we never see them change course FTL (heck I can't recall a time we see them change course outside TUC period)

They also do in... oh hell, "Evolution" I think. The vs debaters bring it up a lot because "lol it just shattered the asteroid puny firepower" but the torps also took a few turns.

In "Evolution", they did change course, but they were launched from a stationary (relative to the asteroid field) starship, so they weren't travelling at warp.

[Rommel123]

Yeah, you're exactly right.

I don't think a good in-universe answer even exists here. It's one place where we've just got to accept that TOS and TNG were made 20 years apart and leave it at that.

I think it could be due to jamming. We see some long-range examples in all Star Trek series, or at least hear about them (200 000 km, >40 000 km, and few others in TNG, first example possibly being warp combat; 200 000 km and 90 000 km and few others in TOS - with first distance involving warp combat and second example being impulse combat against 1-meter probe; 5-or-so thousand kilometers in ENT) but we never see it in DS9 fleet battles.

Also, "Wounded" shows that high-energy subspace field can jam Star Trek sensors.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yeah, you're exactly right.

I don't think a good in-universe answer even exists here. It's one place where we've just got to accept that TOS and TNG were made 20 years apart and leave it at that.

Eh. I think its possible to reconcile it, if you're patient enough. I don't think it would be easy, or neccesarily an answer people would like, but I am sure there's an answer that wouldn't require too much bending over backwards, as long as you keep Vs out of it.

I do agree though, out of universe explanations are the simplest and work for most people. You only really need a more complex explanation if you are working purely in universe terms.

Weapons ranges aren't really a major issue to explain, at least for Trek and Star Wars. There are lots of factors that can allow for short ranged combat to exist or be practical. Hyperdrive and Warp drive are both quite precise in their own ways, and you can potentially arrive very close to the target. Close range engagments can be quite useful for projectile weapons of both guided and unguided varieties (rapid propogation rate, limited ability to intercept, etc.) and both universes have plenty of examples of projectile (or projectile like weapons.) Hell if they're using warheads like missiles or torpedoes, you could sacrifice engine power/guidance for greater payload, or (if using cannons) fire them at slower velocities (which could allow you to fire a bigger warhead, or fire more shots, or even fire at reduced recoil. That's hardly a disadvantage.)
There are always tractor beams as well (for star wars at least) which may require close engagement ranges.

Other possibilities include:

- fighting style. If you have Andromeda-verse or Lensman verse ships that can, through technobabble demonstrate tremendous speed and agility, longer engagment ranges might be needed (depending on ohw fast you go, and the reaction times involved) but too long a range and the target might be able to react and dodge even lightspeed weapons fire.

- the effectiveness of weapons and defenses may be range dependnet (at longer ranges, weapons may lose coherence or energy, whilst shields may have a harder time stopping attacks at clsoer range. Or there may be "interference/overlap" from two opposing shields which negates their effects. Or like in Dune, SW, or 40K, shield penetration may have a velocity-dependence.)

- closer ranges could limit the use of certain weapons that may be more effective at longer ranges. powerful warheads (like nukes), fixed-axis weapons , very heavy turrets (like HTL) may also be more inaccurate/ineffective at targeting at close range (or may not even have effecitve fire arcs) close up.

Hell, even your "close range = better accuracy, especially when targeting subsystems" is a workable idea. so what if, by itself, it won't cover all circumstances? Who says that the explanation has to be a single, all encompassing thing? Why can't things like short (or long) ranges be dictated by multiple factors? (think about the never-ending argument about "effective real life sci fi weapons" on atomic rockets or SFConsim D13 - how often has that mutated over time, even amongst parituclar weapons types like a laser?)

Alot of it will just depend on how patient and willing you are to work out an explanation

[Connor MacLeod]

Also:

I won't deny that long range can be useful or effective, but it's not always neccessary or desirable. Two of the most commonly cited "long weapons range" and "high velocity" universes - Andromeda and the Honor Harrington universe, both fight at extremely long - multi-LS/Light-minute ranges, and travel at percentages of the speed of light, but what often is overlooked (mainly by the proponents) is that the technology often dictates they must fight that way. For one thing, the FTLs in the relative universes are not precise, and often require that ships emerge some distance from inhabited planets (or outside the system.) Which means sublight travel is needed to get in-system, and that means (usually) velocitiies will be rather high. This in turn dictates the combat style, which while long ranged, also means that point defense has lots of time for interception, even with high projectile velocities, and low accuracy or hit rates (due to targeting and point defense issues), which in turn dictates stupidly huge missile volleys are needed to score any hits. Which is, IMHO far more wasteful compared to simple energy weapons (or even projectiles.) Sure, ST or SW may not often fight at those ranges, but why do they need to ? Their FTL allows them to arrive close to a desired destination, so range is a more trivial concern.

[Vympel]

Targeting specific subsystems only goes so far. We're talking 10s of thousands of kilometres to ls ranges vs maybe single km ranges in TNG+, even when they're shooting to kill. I think this is one aspect where improving SFX technology bites visual SciFi in the ass: the vast majority of the audience, not really comprehending the distances involved, expects to be able to see all involved parties in a space battle, because that way it's more exciting, because unlike us, they don't give a rat's ass whether it is realistic or not. B5 managed to strike a tolerable compromise on occasion by showing the firing ship and then cutting to the target being hit, but even they had an awful amount of stupidly close-range fighting.

Since becoming a raving evangelist for LOGH, I call bullshit on this assumption made by people who make these shows that the participants always need to be seen in proximity to make the battle exciting. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I'm happy to see energy beams blow ships apart when the fleets are explicitly light seconds apart - not seeing the other guy changes nothing (though of course, LOGH combat has its fair share of close-in fighting too, but thats explicitly acknowledged as part of their tactics and is a natural outcome of the 'end game' of most battles).

Heck - Balance of Terror still holds up as an awesome space battle episode. And we never even see the Enterprise and its enemy within visual range of each other. Why? Because like in LOGH, the focus of the engagement is just as much on the two commanding officers duking it out as it is on the techno-tactical oooohhh-aaaaahhhhh that tv shows are so used to now.

[Joe Momma]

"Well, a part of the phaser beam hit, but a microsecond of dwell time translates to zero damage. It couldn't track the changing angle at that speed..." (though the angle would change a lot less at longer ranges, you then have the problem of being a fraction of a degree off means you still missed!)

Perhaps part of the problem with longer weapon ranges is the speed of the weapons themselves. As a simplistic example, let's takes a STL fight with beam weapons whose blasts travel at lightspeed. At 3000m, it takes 1/100,000th of a second for the weapons' fire to hit their target. At 30,000km, it takes 1/10th of a second. That's a vastly greater time in which the target ship is moving. Certainly the difference in position could be extrapolated if all relevant movement factors were constant, but if there are any irregularities in the ship's movement due to evasive maneuvers, local stellar conditions, damage or other issues with propulsion those irregularities can add up to a vastly different predicted future position at the time of firing versus the time the beam actually arrives. The speed of the vessels can make quite a difference too, greatly increasing the shift in predicted position that even a minute degree of heading change can make over 1/10th of a second compared to 1/100,000th.

Even if the firing vessel has FTL sensors in the above scenario, it won't change the effects of distance and time on a lightspeed beam weapons' aiming, unless they have some ability to shift the beam's direction in flight. Missiles are a more complicated case.

A lot of you guys are more qualified to run more of the possible number than I am, but even the simple example above might offer some additional explanation for the "knife-fight" ranges -- it may be damn near impossible to otherwise land a hit on an evading target without closing in enough to offset the limitations in weapon speed.