An alternate theory that explains The Die is Cast

[Alyeska]

Ok, I would expect that most if not all of us know the consistency problems with the DS9 episode The Die is Cast. Predictions before the attack say it will take 1 hour to remove the crust from the planet and 5 hours to take it down to the core. Then we see the first attack and they claim 30% of the crust was destroyed, which obivously contradicts the predicted damage.

Some explinations have been put forth, but none really explain the massive contradiction between the two points.

Well, what if there is a way to explain both the prediction and the damage reported without there being a contradiction?

Lets say that they had decided to attack the Founder homeworld in a grid format. Target each grid and destroy it, move on and destroy the next grid. Would it not be logical to conclude that if they had a target area in the first volley (the one that destroyed 30% of the crust) that the would report the damage done to the targeted area?

So in effect, they destroyed 30% of the crust in the targeted area, not 30% of the entire planets crust. Using accepted refire rates, one can back track the firepower needed to remove the crust in an hour and figure out how much damage was done in the first volley based on the amount of time that volley took. You won't get precise firepower figures, but you would get aproximate firepower a ship down to a few seconds worth of weapons fire.

[Stravo]

Definately one of the more reasonable answers I've read reagrding this troublesome episode.

[TheDarkling]

Except taking the 1 hour figure give some funky sized weapon calcs but we have to remember NDF I guess, still I have heard GT-TT level weapons based on he size of the explosions we see.

[Alyeska]

Except taking the 1 hour figure give some funky sized weapon calcs but we have to remember NDF I guess, still I have heard GT-TT level weapons based on he size of the explosions we see.

One thing to remember. If NDF makes a phaser massively more powerful then it would normally be against shields, one would notice that. Notice how powerful the torpedo damage was in comparison to the beam damage? Pretty damned comparable. Torpedoes shouldn't cause significantly more damage to ground targets then shields. Yet their firepower was shown similarly in that episode.

I think it is total BS the idea that phasers are more effective against material then shields. If that were the case, we should see a significant improvement of their firepower compared to torpedoes. Which we have not seen. The most logical explination is that phasers cause the same damage to shields as they do to material. They still impart more energy then is put into them. They affect material more then the originating power would seem to indicate, and all evidence points to the same with NDF against trek shields.

[Kuja]

Good point about the torps.

[Master of Ossus]

I think it is total BS the idea that phasers are more effective against material then shields. If that were the case, we should see a significant improvement of their firepower compared to torpedoes. Which we have not seen.

What are you talking about? Phasers seem to involve more energy than torpedoes, but torpedoes are always depicted as doing more damage. How do you look at that other than to say that the phasers do not operate effectively against shielded starships?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Phasers work better on materiel like ROCK. I don't remember photons being shot as rocks.

[TheDarkling]

I think its odd that DS9 seems alot more powerfull than TNG (ship numbers, planetary defense, weapons power), Voy seems to be smopewhat more powerfull than TNG and TOS did aswell - TNG is the weakest trek by far.

[Alyeska]

I think it is total BS the idea that phasers are more effective against material then shields. If that were the case, we should see a significant improvement of their firepower compared to torpedoes. Which we have not seen.

What are you talking about? Phasers seem to involve more energy than torpedoes, but torpedoes are always depicted as doing more damage. How do you look at that other than to say that the phasers do not operate effectively against shielded starships?

Compare the damage caused by the beam weapons in TDIC to the torpedoes on damage caused on the planet. If you use that as a base, phasers ought to cause SIGNIFICANTLY less damage to shields. Yet the fact they are used in combat and have shown similar levels of firepower to torpedoes is proof they are not dependent on material and pathetic against shields.

2 proximity detonated QTs and 2 QT direct hits crippled a Keldon. 6 GCS phaser array shots crippled a Galor.

Romulan and Cardassian beam weapons do similar levels of damage to the ground as their torpedoes.

[Alyeska]

I think its odd that DS9 seems alot more powerfull than TNG (ship numbers, planetary defense, weapons power), Voy seems to be smopewhat more powerfull than TNG and TOS did aswell - TNG is the weakest trek by far.

Yeah. My favorite saying about TNG is that durring DS9 they spent years reparing the damage from decades of peace.

[Alyeska]

Phasers work better on materiel like ROCK. I don't remember photons being shot as rocks.

Except beam weapons and torpedoes do similar levels of damage against ships hull. Beam weapons and torpedoes do similar levels of damage against a planets surface (TDIC), and Garak expected a small volley of Q-Torps manually aimed to be enough to destroy the founders on their new homeworld.

[TheDarkling]

Yeah I have dnoe on few posts on SF and the Feds attitudes and state over time and early TNG was the worst for the military by far.

[Alyeska]

Yeah I have dnoe on few posts on SF and the Feds attitudes and state over time and early TNG was the worst for the military by far.

No kidding. Look how a military genius and war hero such as Benjamin Maxwell was treated.

At least durring DS9 the Federation got some of their spine back. They were willing to go to war with the Romulans just to defend the Bajorans.

[TheDarkling]

They were using the J T Kirk book of diplomacy - meaning bluff like hell and pray.

They knew the Romulans would back down thats why Ross stood up to them - because they wouldnt dare push the Feds.

[Master of Ossus]

Compare the damage caused by the beam weapons in TDIC to the torpedoes on damage caused on the planet. If you use that as a base, phasers ought to cause SIGNIFICANTLY less damage to shields. Yet the fact they are used in combat and have shown similar levels of firepower to torpedoes is proof they are not dependent on material and pathetic against shields.

2 proximity detonated QTs and 2 QT direct hits crippled a Keldon. 6 GCS phaser array shots crippled a Galor.

Romulan and Cardassian beam weapons do similar levels of damage to the ground as their torpedoes.

1. Keldons are MUCH more powerful than Galor class warships.
2. You appear to indicate that because both ships were crippled, the amount of damage done to them was the same. I can cripple a US supercarrier by pulling a pipe out of its nuclear core in the wrong place, or I can cripple it by bombarding it with a few dozen air-to-ship missiles. Both would cripple it, but one obviously involves much more energy than the other.
3. Just because a ship in ST uses its phasers against shielded ships does not mean that it is trying to damage the shield. There are instances of ST ships taking serious damage from weapons fire before their shields failed, indicating that ST shields are not 100% effective in stopping all damage to a starship. It is possible that when phasers are fired against shields, the firing ship is trying to do damage to the ship itself but not to harm the shield, whereas torpedoes are meant to do both.
4. Phasers are usually more readily available than torpedoes. The fact that torpedoes are more powerful does not mean that phasers are meaningless.
5. We have observed that torpedoes appear to do more damage to ships than phasers, but in several episodes it appears as if phasers are more effective against rock than torpedoes. Thus, we should be able to conclude that phasers and torpedoes do not do equal damage to different kinds of targets.

[Alyeska]

They were using the J T Kirk book of diplomacy - meaning bluff like hell and pray.

They knew the Romulans would back down thats why Ross stood up to them - because they wouldnt dare push the Feds.

Yes, but something tells me that Ross was willing to take it all the way if it came to that. Besides, Ross knew enough about Section 31 to know that the Romulans would not have an easy ride at war with the Federation.

[TheDarkling]

MOO: Some examples of point 5 please?

[Master of Ossus]

The VAST majority of starship kills in ST are from torpedoes, but as stated in this thread, torpedoes and phasers appear to do similar amounts of damage to rock.

[TheDarkling]

Maybe Disruptors arent the same as phasers- In face of the enemy the Romulans expect their disruptor fire to cripple a shieldless Ent-D.

However if Torps and Disruptors do similar damage to rock and Torps dont have any special powers the NDF effect cant be that material dependant.

Also this gives Torp calcs in the GT - TT range and Disruptors cant be that much lower against shields thus putting them in a GT range possibly high MT.

[Alyeska]

Ok, all good points. Lets see if I can adress them.

1. Keldons are MUCH more powerful than Galor class warships.

I agree with you here to a point. The Keldon was noted as being more powerful, but I do not think the power is by a large degree. I would theorize that the extra hump on the back held more power generation allowing for better shields (and possibly where the cloak was located). But when you compare the damage the Keldon took with other ships the Defiant has attacked, it does not seem to be more powerful to an extreme over the Galor class.

2. You appear to indicate that because both ships were crippled, the amount of damage done to them was the same. I can cripple a US supercarrier by pulling a pipe out of its nuclear core in the wrong place, or I can cripple it by bombarding it with a few dozen air-to-ship missiles. Both would cripple it, but one obviously involves much more energy than the other.

are talking combat here, and both Cardassian ships were attacked in combat by Federation ships. Both seemed to take damage from Federation fire and after sustained fire were crippled. I would assume that it was general damage and equipment failure caused the ships to stop functioning.

3. Just because a ship in ST uses its phasers against shielded ships does not mean that it is trying to damage the shield. There are instances of ST ships taking serious damage from weapons fire before their shields failed, indicating that ST shields are not 100% effective in stopping all damage to a starship. It is possible that when phasers are fired against shields, the firing ship is trying to do damage to the ship itself but not to harm the shield, whereas torpedoes are meant to do both.

Interesting idea behind this. And I am going to have to agree with you to a point. When the Defiant fired on one Keldon, it took the shields down to 30% yet also caused an explossion from one of the nacelles indicating damage managed to leak through. This would seem to indicate that phasers are used to bypass shields to a degree while the torpedoes batter the shields down making it easier for general damage to the enemy ship.

4. Phasers are usually more readily available than torpedoes. The fact that torpedoes are more powerful does not mean that phasers are meaningless.[/qoute]

Never said they were. Phasers have no ammo limitations (relatively) and hence can be fired more often. Phasers have better refire rates and can fire when torpedoes are being reloaded.

I am going to have to slightly disagree here. Yes, we have seen phasers used against planets more often, but I think there is a logical reason for that. When we have seen Fed ships fire on a planet, danger to the ship was minimal at best. They did not have to worry about being killed, and had time. Why waste a torpedo when you can use an "unlimited" weapon such as the phasers? You also have to factor in the only times we have ever seen true planetary assault rather then mission specific weapon use.

I can only ever think of Skin of Evil, Peagasus (which they said to use torpedoes against rock rather then phasers), TDIC, Broken Link, and a few other episodes. Most had use of torpedoes or combinations of torpedoes and phasers rather then phasers allone.

I recall use of phasers on planets, but those were typically not plantetary assault condititions IIRC.

[Alyeska]

(sigh), I wish I could edit the above post to fix the mistakes...

[Master of Ossus]

I agree with you here to a point. The Keldon was noted as being more powerful, but I do not think the power is by a large degree. I would theorize that the extra hump on the back held more power generation allowing for better shields (and possibly where the cloak was located). But when you compare the damage the Keldon took with other ships the Defiant has attacked, it does not seem to be more powerful to an extreme over the Galor class.

Okay, I think I'll try to respond to your points individually because the quote thing got screwed up in the last post. This will be the first one.

Keldon cruisers are clearly much more powerful than Galor class ships. Remember how stunned Gul Dukat was at their performance? Clearly they are not only larger, but also more advanced starships which may have vastly superior shields when compared with the Galor.

[Master of Ossus]

are talking combat here, and both Cardassian ships were attacked in combat by Federation ships. Both seemed to take damage from Federation fire and after sustained fire were crippled. I would assume that it was general damage and equipment failure caused the ships to stop functioning.

Are you saying that after a certain amount of damage in such and such a timeframe a ship is crippled, automatically, and never before or after it takes that much damage? Clearly the premise here is flawed. For that matter, the same principle can be applied to ships that are destroyed, but the disparity and kills between torpedoes and phasers means that torpedoes are clearly more effective in combat against shielded ships than phaser fire.

[Master of Ossus]

Interesting idea behind this. And I am going to have to agree with you to a point. When the Defiant fired on one Keldon, it took the shields down to 30% yet also caused an explossion from one of the nacelles indicating damage managed to leak through. This would seem to indicate that phasers are used to bypass shields to a degree while the torpedoes batter the shields down making it easier for general damage to the enemy ship.

This is also supported by "Yesterday's Enterprise," in which the E-D suffered a hull breach before losing its shields. IIRC, there are other instances in combat during which the same thing happened, including BoBW.

[Master of Ossus]

4. Phasers are usually more readily available than torpedoes. The fact that torpedoes are more powerful does not mean that phasers are meaningless.[/qoute]

Never said they were. Phasers have no ammo limitations (relatively) and hence can be fired more often. Phasers have better refire rates and can fire when torpedoes are being reloaded.

But you appeared to indicate that the use of phasers in combat precludes a more powerful effective yield for torpedoes.