Alyeska wrote:
Trek Beam phasers opperate on a very similar principle with eachother. Arrays are simply scaled up versions with more firepower. PPCs opperate sigificantly differently and are only on one ship. The fact they were developed solely for a ship to fight the Borg and apparently not used since should make a point.
So you assume the Federation deliberately installed a vastly inferior targeting system than what they are capable of with beam weapons? That makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, why bother with pulses at all if they are vastly more inferior? Why not heavy beam emplacements?
Other weapons DO in fact apply, even torpedoes. Targeting methods between different systems are not going to be *THAT* dissimilar (Without specific proof, I see no reason to assume that targeting sensors for a Pulse phaser are going to be different than for a beam phaser.) Even IF the Defiant was designed to fight against the Borg, why would they deliberately install an inferior weapons system! Youwould want your weapons to be as ACCURATE as possible! And this goes for torpedoes as well.
As for the "physical layout" of the weapon (strip vs fixed mount), that really only is going to affect fire arcs (the strips have far wider firing arcs than the fixed mounts, and maybe recoil compensation. A fixed mount probably can handle greater amounts of recoil (and indirectly a more powerful discharge.) than a strip array. But if both mounts are capable of damaging starships in reasonable timeframes, they CANNOT be vastly different in terms of sheer destructive power (at least insofar as recoil and DET are concerned - NDF isn't likely to adversely affect targeting in any fashion.) In fact, its liklier that the beam phasers suffer greater recoil than the pulses, due to differences in apparent velocity, unless the pulse phasers are *substantially* more massive. AT a certain point, this will claerly become problematic.
One other consideration is how non-array beam phasers fit in (particularily among the movie/TOS models, which I believe are still in use even in the Dominion war.) Odds are those are more akin to the fixed pulse phasers in terms of design than to the strip arrays. I *know* non-strip beam phasers exist and have been used - do these too share 99% accuracy?
And yes there are litteraly hundreds of examples of phaser fire in TNG+ Trek. Out of the colaborative efforts of more then a dozen people constantly scouring the sources we've come up with five examples (I forgot to mention that Data missed Picard and Worf in Insurrection) against non cloaked targets. Although two of the examples have to do with stealthed targets. There exist another two examples of misses against cloaked targets. Thats it. Poe obviously put a lot of effort into his video and yet he could only find two of these examples to put into it. This alone speaks strongly for the accuracy. Countless Klingon and Dominion beam weapon misses are shown yet the Federation only gets two.
Um, sorry, but that's not good enough. I am not exactly expecting a website here, or expecting you to go out and do it for the purposes of this debate, but I am going to point out that from what you are telling me, you really didn't do all that good a job of analyzing it (at least compared to what I have learned to expect from others and to have others expect from me.)
For a claim as comprehensive as you and others have been making, I might expect something more substantial. I might point out that you have not hesitated to demand proof from others (IE Wayne) ato prove *his* points - that strikes me as being rather unfair, don't you think?
Moreover, the claim that beam phasers have 99% accuracy is not exactly something that would be handled simply, even ignoring the sheer volume of data as well as correlating and recording it. Variables must be accounted for in each example (IE targeting conditions, target nature and type, range, etc.) If I asked you about some of those variables or conditions (how fast were targets moving on average, were they manuvering, how large/small were the targets in question, etc.)
As for Wayne's examples, that depends on relative technical capabilities of the Federation and its allies/enemies. Some perhaps can be technologically inferior (I believe the KAzon were, the Klingons probably are in the modern day, and I think the Cardassians were - but does this also mean the Romulans and Dominion are? The Borg? ) I find it hard to believe that everyone has vastly more powerful weapons to compensate for their relatively poorer accuracy.
And as to applying it to smaller ships. Thats probably a good idea. Of all the misses we have two different examples of shuttle level ships missing. Data with the scoutship in Insurrection against another shuttle sized target and a Runabout against a Jem'Hadar attackship. I would probably argue that the Delta Flyer was designed with combat in mind like the Tac-Fighter and should be more accurate, but at best I can only point out the layout of the Delta Flyer and use that as circumstansial evidence.
I'm pointing out that if you are going to be selective about accuracy in some cases, you have to be in others - even with phaser strips (a more powerful stirp for example will need greater recoil compensation, which can have an impact on its targeting abilities compared to those of a less powerful one. Sensor/targeting software can also be a factor - a shuttlecraft's sensors are of course not comparable to the Enterprise or the Defiant.) Hell, you would even have to differentiate between phaser banks and strips (they certainly are differently designed, are they not?)
)
That can't be right. So what is it?
