Scimitar vs. Sovereign

[m52nickerson]

I'm in a hurry, so I can't respond to the two major posts, I'll just respond to this since it's the crux of the whole argument:

..and in this case the movie dialogue tells us that the Scimitar has 52 disrupors, so if someone wants to state otherwise they would have to show some type of proof.

I have provided my proof already. I have also given several reasons as to why the number of disruptors Worf called out could have easily been wrong.

If the cloak failed, the backups would be designed if not when

Those backups make an already hideously expensive and complex vessel far more so. To shove on a whole tonne of weapons that will probably never see use is a massive waste of resources.
The Scimitar was designed to fight under cloak. Ergo, adding 47 more guns that cannot fire when cloaked is pointless. If the cloak is damaged beyond repair, the ship should retreat out of the combat zone (which its powerful shields would be more than able to allow it to do).

So with that in mind, we can come to one of two conclusion:
Worf was, for whichever reason you choose to pick, wrong when he called out the Scimitar's armament, and as observed the ship has far less weapons.
Or
Worf was right in his analysis, and the Romulans/Remans decided to waste a massive amount of money and resources and increase the mass, complexity and construction time of a ship that already had seriously high levels in all of those factors.

Personaly, I find option 1 to be the more plausable.

You are basing your argument on what we see of the battle. We do not see every shot fired, so it does not disprove Worf's statement as we see the Scimitar firing from only a few points on the hull. This does not mean it does not have more weapons or those weapons are located close together.

Seeing a disruptors come in various sizes and nothing is said about the size of each disruptor add more to the design may not have added enough mass to really affect it's maneuverability. So having extra, or redundant system would be a plus.

[m52nickerson]

In the real world yes. We are talking about a movie. It was stated that the Scimitar had 52 disruptors. Nothing else stated in the movie would suggest different.

1) As Rochey has frequently stated, we have plenty of evidence - the fact that we didn't see anything like 52 weapons fired during the battle.

2) Under suspension of disbelief we have to treat the film as documentary footage of the events it depicts. In the specific case of Worf's tactical readout, we can state as fact that Worf said that the Scimitar had 52 disruptors. Not that that information is necessarily correct. People are falible. Visuals, under SoD, aren't.

1, you have conjecture based on incomplete visuals of the battle.

2, Again the visuals are incomplete and even if the scimitar did not fire all of its weapons it does not disprove there existence.

[Captain Seafort]

You are basing your argument on what we see of the battle. We do not see every shot fired, so it does not disprove Worf's statement as we see the Scimitar firing from only a few points on the hull. This does not mean it does not have more weapons or those weapons are located close together.

So the Scimitar was letting rip with all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, but ceased fire with most of them while we were watching did it? Every single image of the battle shows the Scimitar firing only a handful of weapons, even when Shinzon specifically ordered "fire all weapons". The argument that the disruptors are tightly clustered, and so appeared to be a single weapon, violates Occam's Razor - i.e. that the simplest answer that explains all the evidence is preferable.

Seeing a disruptors come in various sizes and nothing is said about the size of each disruptor add more to the design may not have added enough mass to really affect it's maneuverability. So having extra, or redundant system would be a plus.

And you don't think Worf might have mentioned the fact that the majority of the Scimitar's weapons were point-defence guns if that had been the case? Not to mention the fact that it's contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons" order.

[m52nickerson]

So the Scimitar was letting rip with all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, but ceased fire with most of them while we were watching did it? Every single image of the battle shows the Scimitar firing only a handful of weapons, even when Shinzon specifically ordered "fire all weapons". The argument that the disruptors are tightly clustered, and so appeared to be a single weapon, violates Occam's Razor - i.e. that the simplest answer that explains all the evidence is preferable.

Perhaps the distuptors are set up to fire in a chain link pattern, and not at the same time. This would allow continuous fire.

No, it does not voilate Occam's Razor because you also have to consider Worfs statements. In fact the simplest explanation which take into account Worf's statements, which are very much cannon and there for fact, and explains the visuals it tightly grouped weapons. This idea does not violate anything seen or heard.

Seeing a disruptors come in various sizes and nothing is said about the size of each disruptor add more to the design may not have added enough mass to really affect it's maneuverability. So having extra, or redundant system would be a plus.

And you don't think Worf might have mentioned the fact that the majority of the Scimitar's weapons were point-defence guns if that had been the case? Not to mention the fact that it's contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons" order.[/quote]

He might have, if asked for further details. No, smaller point defense disruptors would not contradict Shinzons orders. If Picard ordered Worf to fire all phasers would Worf fire phaser arrays that could not hit the target, No.

[Captain Seafort]

Perhaps the distuptors are set up to fire in a chain link pattern, and not at the same time. This would allow continuous fire.

It would. Pity the Scimitar never displayed anything close to continuous fire.

No, it does not voilate Occam's Razor because you also have to consider Worfs statements. In fact the simplest explanation which take into account Worf's statements, which are very much cannon and there for fact, and explains the visuals it tightly grouped weapons. This idea does not violate anything seen or heard.

You're assuming that Worf's infalible, and that his statements are accurate. You're therefore trying to come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons why Worf's statement and the Scimitar's performance contradict each other. A far simler solution is that Worf, for whatever reason, was simply wrong.

He might have, if asked for further details.

If I told you, as a battleship's tactical officer, that a ship was armed with over a thousand guns you'd assume, understandably, that it was heavily armed. If I knew that nine hundred of those guns were 9mm pistols, it would be grossly neglegent of me not to mention that fact, as you would otherwise be left with a massively distorted impression of your enemy's capabilities.

No, smaller point defense disruptors would not contradict Shinzons orders. If Picard ordered Worf to fire all phasers would Worf fire phaser arrays that could not hit the target, No.

He would, however, fire all the weapons that could. Are you now suggesting that most of the Scimitar's weapons cover its rear arc?

[m52nickerson]

It would. Pity the Scimitar never displayed anything close to continuous fire.

What are you talking about? Every time we saw the ship firing we see it firing multiply shots until it turned away.

You're assuming that Worf's infalible, and that his statements are accurate. You're therefore trying to come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons why Worf's statement and the Scimitar's performance contradict each other. A far simler solution is that Worf, for whatever reason, was simply wrong.

Since there is no reason for us not to believe Worf's statements, and they are cannon they need to be treated as fact. A simpler solution that ignores evidence is not what Occam's Razor is about.

If I told you, as a battleship's tactical officer, that a ship was armed with over a thousand guns you'd assume, understandably, that it was heavily armed. If I knew that nine hundred of those guns were 9mm pistols, it would be grossly neglegent of me not to mention that fact, as you would otherwise be left with a massively distorted impression of your enemy's capabilities.

...and Worf did not include the hand held disruptors in his evaluation.

He would, however, fire all the weapons that could. Are you now suggesting that most of the Scimitar's weapons cover its rear arc?

Could be a combination of rear, dorsal, ventral, starboard, port, front arc above the median plan, ect.

[Captain Seafort]

What are you talking about? Every time we saw the ship firing we see it firing multiply shots until it turned away.

And where did I say otherwise? I simply stated that it didn't demonstrate anything close to "continuous fire". (I.e. this.)

Since there is no reason for us not to believe Worf's statements

Other than the fact that it's directly contradicted by visuals.

and they are cannon they need to be treated as fact.

It's a fact that Worf said that. It's not a fact that he's right.

A simpler solution that ignores evidence is not what Occam's Razor is about.

Who said anything about ignoring him? I specifically mentioned how the statement should be dealt with.

...and Worf did not include the hand held disruptors in his evaluation.

Nor can disruptors be fired at passing starships. Pistols, in a pinch, can be fired at attacking ships.

Could be a combination of rear, dorsal, ventral, starboard, port, front arc above the median plan, ect.

Then why were they never seen firing in the battle?

[m52nickerson]

What are you talking about? Every time we saw the ship firing we see it firing multiply shots until it turned away.

And where did I say otherwise? I simply stated that it didn't demonstrate anything close to "continuous fire". (I.e. this.)

Rate of fire is not equal to continuous fire.

Since there is no reason for us not to believe Worf's statements

Other than the fact that it's directly contradicted by visuals.

Again the visuals are incomplete.

and they are cannon they need to be treated as fact.

It's a fact that Worf said that. It's not a fact that he's right.

No, the fact that Paramount, the director of the movie, the writers, ect....says he was correct.

A simpler solution that ignores evidence is not what Occam's Razor is about.

Who said anything about ignoring him? I specifically mentioned how the statement should be dealt with.

As skeptical, then when coming to a conclusion it is ignored.

...and Worf did not include the hand held disruptors in his evaluation.

Nor can disruptors be fired at passing starships. Pistols, in a pinch, can be fired at attacking ships.

Spacesuits for the win!

Could be a combination of rear, dorsal, ventral, starboard, port, front arc above the median plan, ect.

Then why were they never seen firing in the battle?

Incomplete visuals of the battle.

[Captain Seafort]

Rate of fire is not equal to continuous fire

And?

Again the visuals are incomplete.

Already dealt with.

No, the fact that Paramount, the director of the movie, the writers, ect....says he was correct.

If writer's intent was in any way relevent under SoD, you'd have a point. It isn't, so you don't.

Who said anything about ignoring him? I specifically mentioned how the statement should be dealt with.

As skeptical, then when coming to a conclusion it is ignored.

In English please.

Spacesuits for the win!

Are you going to respond to the point made smartarse?

Incomplete visuals of the battle.

*Yawns* See above.

[Mikey]

Again, I have to point out that what canon relates to the fact that Worf said what he said - not whether he was correct. And any statements made by Paramount or the production team may have weight, but are not canon.

[Mikey]

Again, I have to point out that what canon relates to the fact that Worf said what he said - not whether he was correct. And any statements made by Paramount or the production team may have weight, but are not canon.

[m52nickerson]

Rate of fire is not equal to continuous fire

And?

...just becasue the Scimitar does not fire at a super high rate of fire does not mean it is not continuous.

Again the visuals are incomplete.

Already dealt with.

No, it was not dealt with it was dismissed.

No, the fact that Paramount, the director of the movie, the writers, ect....says he was correct.

If writer's intent was in any way relevent under SoD, you'd have a point. It isn't, so you don't.

No intent needed, it is there in black and white.

Who said anything about ignoring him? I specifically mentioned how the statement should be dealt with.

As skeptical, then when coming to a conclusion it is ignored.

In English please.

You mentioned that the statement should be regarded as possible incorrect. As such you then ignored that statement when drawing your conclusion, and that is why it is flawed.

Spacesuits for the win!

Are you going to respond to the point made smartarse?

My point was that hand phasers could be used to fire on another ship.

Incomplete visuals of the battle.

*Yawns* See above.[/quote]

How is that again?

Many of the 52 disruptors on the Scimitar could be covering specific weapon arcs. For instant the disruptors used to knock out the enterprises warp were probably not forward firing weapons. The Scimitar was above and behind the enterprise, clearly seen on the Scimitars main screen, so the ship could not have been directly facing the Enterprise or it would have been getting closer to it. The pic below illustrates this



We also can't say for sure how many weapons were fired. We see shots coming from both sides of the screen, so there is at least two. If more disruptors were place on the same horizontal plane it would appear the shots were coming from the same points on the edge of the main view screen.

[Mikey]

Since you're relying so much on placing the import of gospel on dialogue, compare your analysis with the fact that every shot fired is supposedly "all weapons" that the Scimitar possesses. As to:

No intent needed, it is there in black and white.

It could have been stated by the Pope - but it's still not canon.

[Captain Seafort]

...just becasue the Scimitar does not fire at a super high rate of fire does not mean it is not continuous.

Continuous means without a break. Not only were there breaks in the fire, they lasted for significant fractions of a second.

No, it was not dealt with it was dismissed.

If you're so fucking stupid that you think the Scimitar would fire all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, and then suddenly ceased fire when we went back to the battle, then I can't help you.

No intent needed, it is there in black and white.

Are you fucking blind? Me, Rochey, and Mikey have all pointed out repeatedly that it's fact that Worf said that the Scimitar had 52 disruptors. It is NOT fact that he was right. Get that through your skull.

You mentioned that the statement should be regarded as possible incorrect. As such you then ignored that statement when drawing your conclusion, and that is why it is flawed.

How the fuck is dismissing a statement by an individual who is by no means infailble, which is directly contradicted by the visual evidence, "flawed"?

My point was that hand phasers could be used to fire on another ship.

Alright sea-lawyer, ammend that to read that pistols can be fired on attacking ships from abaord the ship, and without extensive suiting up on the part of the firer.

How is that again?

Are you fucking blind?

If you're so fucking stupid that you think the Scimitar would fire all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, and then suddenly ceased fire when we went back to the battle, then I can't help you.

Is that clear enough for you?

Many of the 52 disruptors on the Scimitar could be covering specific weapon arcs. For instant the disruptors used to knock out the enterprises warp were probably not forward firing weapons.

Really? They probably weren't forward firing weapons, despite the fact that they were firing on the E-E...why was in front of the Scimitar. Idiot.

The Scimitar was above and behind the enterprise, clearly seen on the Scimitars main screen, so the ship could not have been directly facing the Enterprise or it would have been getting closer to it.

It could have been flying in a sharp bow down attitude, but yours is the simplest solution. Unless, however, you're suggesting that the Scimitar has only two disruptors on it's belly, and fifty on it's upper surface, it doesn't help your case. Nor does it answer waht all these weapons were doing later in the battle when the Scimitar was aiming head on at the E-E (e.g. when she was firing on the bridge).

We also can't say for sure how many weapons were fired. We see shots coming from both sides of the screen, so there is at least two. If more disruptors were place on the same horizontal plane it would appear the shots were coming from the same points on the edge of the main view screen.

All the shots were coming from the exact same points. I believe this is true for the majority of the shots fired during the battle, but Rochey's the one who did the detailed analysis so I can't be 100% certain of that.

[Tsukiyumi]

Speaking of the ROF, I was just musing that perhaps the Scimitar's individual disruptors take an exceptionally long time to charge, and perhaps we did see a larger number firing than we assume.