I found something that the NX-01 Enterprise can beat

[NecronLord]

IG myy friend, I believe this is a "Concession Accepted" situation... Would you care to do the honours?

[Kuja]

IG myy friend, I believe this is a "Concession Accepted" situation...

I believe you are correct.

Would you care to do the honours?

I would be delighted.

*ahem*


Suck it down.

[Darth Wong]

BS. SirNitwit made a blanketed statement about how ST ships has extrememly short range, and I corrected him.

With what? Their theoretical ability to hit a non-maneuvering object far away under perfect conditions? You failed to refute his observation that Trek combat always takes place at short range, and your attempt to dismiss visuals in favour of assumptions was hardly a rebuttal.

So is filming in fast forward. You'd seen the nature show where a flower blooms in seconds when it should have taken much longer. Maybe the destruction of Alderaan was fast forwarded. Maybe the DS barely is just powerful enough to barely blow up a planet.

Precisely, which is why it's so important to point out that the Falcon showed up minutes later and there was nothing left. Don't you think that possibility occurred to me?

Depends on how fast it can decelerate (we can see that the warhead and move under its own power), how fast Luke was traveling, how close he was to the thermal exhaust port when he fired.

All of which are known, and none of which permit that to be a real-time shot. Don't appeal to uncertainty.

Ranges, on the other hand, have no such excuse.

Only because it suits your purposes.

Readers, notice how he does not even attempt to provide a reason for dismissing this statement other than attempting to impugn my motives for saying it. A classic textbook example of the appeal to motive fallacy. Well done, CM.

Like the visual of the fleet firing on each other in RotJ? (Luke can look out a window and make out the different ships firing on each other)? Why would ISD's with ranges of millions of km need to fight close enough to each you can see the ships with the naked eye?

Because the propagation delay is obviously far too long to hit maneuvering targets at millions of km, and they obviously couldn't shoot through the planet. When they came sweeping around the planet, they were already well within range. That's how ambushes are supposed to work; you pop up at close range, rather than marching in from long range where the enemy can begin engaging you at distance. You do know that was an ambush, right? They spelled it out on screen, just in case you were too dense to figure it out on your own.

You're picking and choosing your canon again.

Vague accusation of dishonesty which is not backed up by evidence.

I'm sure you don't bother asking yourself whether or not 400 GW figures for the ship in "Survivors" is accurate. The figures gave you a result you like. Otherwise, you'd dismiss them as scientific inaccuracies in the show.

More fallacious ad-hominem fallacies and appeals to motive. I know the "we hate Mike Wong" brigade at SB.com has made a career out of dismissing everything I say by attacking my credibility or motives, but believe it or not, these tactics are fallacies. If you can't come up with a better rebuttal than that, I might as well accept your concession right now.

As for close range fighting,

1). The Voyager was a ship that hasn't been in port for repairs and maintainance in years and to top it off, it's seen more than its share of combat. It's a wonder the ship wasn't flying apart at the seems.

Funny how its combat range was similarly short in "The Caretaker", when this excuse did not apply.

2). Sisko used the same tactic in "Through the Looking Glass" to avoid being hit by the guns on a Klingon capital ship.

Effective against a very large vessel with poor overlapping fields of fire. So what?

3). Why was it that 'In the Empire Strikes Back" all of the ISD's where flying less than their own length from the Millenium Falcon. Don't tell me that they can't target something as small as the Falcon without being that close to it. And even flying that close, they were missing the ship. And let everyone claims that TL's has a range of 75 space units. (100 space units for the DS superlaser, which is in metric units, is 47 million km).

Because a maneuvering, small ship is easy to miss!! What the fuck does this have to do with range for naval guns? Are you always this stupid? What kind of moron assumes that gunnery range for naval artillery is defined by misses against fighters? In WW2, did you look at footage of machine-gunners on battleships missing kamikazes at 100 metres and conclude that the 16" guns have a range of 100 metres? Jesus ass-fucking Christ, in what place on Earth would your arguments be taken seriously?

[Darth Wong]

PS. The guys are right. By trying to change the subject to Star Wars, you have committed the "red herring" fallacy of distraction. Therefore, unless you are willing to re-engage, you have lost the original argument.

PPS. Of course, you can always try to win the NEW argument, but you're never going to prove that Trek effective range (theoretical range being essentially meaningless in combat) is longer than that of SW in light of the mountain of evidence for short combat range in both dialogue and visuals. Nor can you change the fact that it doesn't even matter, since an ISD could laugh off photon torpedoes all day. But by all means, if you wish to formally concede to the guys and then get your ass kicked again on a new subject, go ahead.

[NecronLord]

LoL

[Crossover_Maniac]

BS. SirNitwit made a blanketed statement about how ST ships has extrememly short range, and I corrected him.

With what? Their theoretical ability to hit a non-maneuvering object far away under perfect conditions? You failed to refute his observation that Trek combat always takes place at short range, and your attempt to dismiss visuals in favour of assumptions was hardly a rebuttal.

So is filming in fast forward. You'd seen the nature show where a flower blooms in seconds when it should have taken much longer. Maybe the destruction of Alderaan was fast forwarded. Maybe the DS barely is just powerful enough to barely blow up a planet.

Precisely, which is why it's so important to point out that the Falcon showed up minutes later and there was nothing left. Don't you think that possibility occurred to me?

What makes you think a few minutes past between Alderaan's destruction and Falcon reaching the debris field? Movies skip time in order to fit everything into two-hours of total time shown.

Depends on how fast it can decelerate (we can see that the warhead and move under its own power), how fast Luke was traveling, how close he was to the thermal exhaust port when he fired.

All of which are known, and none of which permit that to be a real-time shot. Don't appeal to uncertainty.

Oh, please. Half of this thread is an appeal to uncertainity. "You don't know if the chemical extracted from a plant isn't a nuclear fuel or a super chemical explosive." However, I can make a case for that the distance Luke took the shot at the DS's Achilles' Heel wasn't too far away.

1). The size of the DS would leave a small horizon. Even at a height of 100 meters over the bottom of the trench, the curvature of the DS would not allow you to hit the exhaust port until you were at least within 4 km of it. Overwise, you'd miss it over the curvature of the DS.

2). Also, during the first run of the Death Star, there was a time delay from the time Biggs made his run and Biggs firing on the exhaust port.

INTERIOR: RED TEN'S COCKPIT.

Red Ten looks around for the Imperial fighters.

RED TEN: We should be able to see it by now.

EXTERIOR: DEATH STAR TRENCH.

From the cockpits of the Rebel pilots, the surface of the Death Star streaks by, with Imperial laserfire shooting toward them.

INTERIOR: RED LEADER'S COCKPIT.

RED LEADER: Keep your eyes open for those fighters!

INTERIOR: RED TEN'S COCKPIT.

RED TEN: There's too much interference.

There is enough time pass for Vader to shoot down Red 12 in his TIE.

then

Three TIE fighters, Vader flanked by two wingmen, dive in a tight formation. The sun reflects off their dominate solar fins as they loop toward the Death Star's surface.

INTERIOR: RED LEADER'S COCKPIT.

Red Leader pulls his targeting device in front of his eyes and makes several adjustments.

RED LEADER: I'm in range.

EXTERIOR: SURFACE OF THE DEATH STAR.

Red Leader's X-wing moves up the Death Star trench.

Note, he said first, "you should see it by now" then he said, "I'm in range". He first got close enough to see the exhaust port above the DS's horizon and then he still had to get close enough to get in range of the exhaust port.

Then Vader destroys Red 10. A few seconds later, Red Leader fires and misses.

This all took place at least for a period of one minute within a length of a few kilometers.

Ranges, on the other hand, have no such excuse.

Only because it suits your purposes.

Readers, notice how he does not even attempt to provide a reason for dismissing this statement other than attempting to impugn my motives for saying it. A classic textbook example of the appeal to motive fallacy. Well done, CM.

I already made my statement why ranges aren't shown exactly like the movies. You can't have battles of 40,000 km without resorting to either altering the scaling or having the entire battle on tactical display like the early episode of Andromeda ("D Minus Zero").

Like the visual of the fleet firing on each other in RotJ? (Luke can look out a window and make out the different ships firing on each other)? Why would ISD's with ranges of millions of km need to fight close enough to each you can see the ships with the naked eye?

Because the propagation delay is obviously far too long to hit maneuvering targets at millions of km, and they obviously couldn't shoot through the planet. When they came sweeping around the planet, they were already well within range. That's how ambushes are supposed to work; you pop up at close range, rather than marching in from long range where the enemy can begin engaging you at distance. You do know that was an ambush, right? They spelled it out on screen, just in case you were too dense to figure it out on your own.

Funny, you seem to have a problem with Sisko doing close range attacks in the episode "The Die is Cast". Also, doesn't he have a cloking device on the Defiant. That would make any attack using the Defiant's cloking device a 'sneak attack'. Then again, it's been awhile since I've seen the episode.

You're picking and choosing your canon again.

Vague accusation of dishonesty which is not backed up by evidence.

Yet, claiming I'm appealing to motive even though I've stated my argument for my position is okay.

I'm sure you don't bother asking yourself whether or not 400 GW figures for the ship in "Survivors" is accurate. The figures gave you a result you like. Otherwise, you'd dismiss them as scientific inaccuracies in the show.

More fallacious ad-hominem fallacies and appeals to motive. I know the "we hate Mike Wong" brigade at SB.com has made a career out of dismissing everything I say by attacking my credibility or motives, but believe it or not, these tactics are fallacies. If you can't come up with a better rebuttal than that, I might as well accept your concession right now.

As for close range fighting,

1). The Voyager was a ship that hasn't been in port for repairs and maintainance in years and to top it off, it's seen more than its share of combat. It's a wonder the ship wasn't flying apart at the seems.

Funny how its combat range was similarly short in "The Caretaker", when this excuse did not apply.

2). Sisko used the same tactic in "Through the Looking Glass" to avoid being hit by the guns on a Klingon capital ship.

Effective against a very large vessel with poor overlapping fields of fire. So what?

3). Why was it that 'In the Empire Strikes Back" all of the ISD's where flying less than their own length from the Millenium Falcon. Don't tell me that they can't target something as small as the Falcon without being that close to it. And even flying that close, they were missing the ship. And let everyone claims that TL's has a range of 75 space units. (100 space units for the DS superlaser, which is in metric units, is 47 million km).

Because a maneuvering, small ship is easy to miss!!

At less than the length of your ship? The Falcon was flying in a straight path when it came out of the asteroid field.

What the fuck does this have to do with range for naval guns?

It means everything. Even if your weapon has an infinite range (and it would in space if you're using a projectile), but has trouble targeting a slow-moving object a few hundred meters away from it, then the weapon is only effective at that distance.

Are you always this stupid? What kind of moron assumes that gunnery range for naval artillery is defined by misses against fighters? In WW2, did you look at footage of machine-gunners on battleships missing kamikazes at 100 metres and conclude that the 16" guns have a range of 100 metres? Jesus ass-fucking Christ, in what place on Earth would your arguments be taken seriously?

It does show evidence that SW ships suffer from poor accuracy. The big guns on the ISD's can get away with it because they're used to target objects much larger and much less manuaverable than fighters.

[Stormbringer]

Crossover_Maniac: you're not doing anything but embarrasing yourself. So far all your claims have been worthless and wrong.


And since this has been hijacked and sidetracked I'm closing it.