Quality vs Quantity

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:21 pm

Teaos wrote:Okay this has been mentioned in several threads now, the debate of big ships or several smaller ones.

Depends on the purpose. In war, with fight power relative to size, one big ship would be better. However, if not in war, a few smaller, yet capable ships would be better as they could patrol more area. Klingon thinking would be one big ship (There is always a war to start). Federation would be multiple smaller ships (exploration and peace). IMO.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:43 pm

Agreed mostly, although the wisest choice would be to have a mix of small, medium, and large vessels.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:57 pm

Rochey wrote:Agreed mostly, although the wisest choice would be to have a mix of small, medium, and large vessels.

I think the question was based on limited resources.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:02 pm

In that case, a medium sized fleet of medium sized vessels would be best.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:26 am

Klingon thinking would be one big ship (There is always a war to start).

Yet Klingons seem to have massive amounts of small ships and only recently have built a big one.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:58 am

For most of their history the Klngons seemed to concentrate on medium-large ships (D5s, D7s). It's only recently that they've started using large numbers of small scout/raider ships, supported by a few medium and large vessels.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:34 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:For most of their history the Klngons seemed to concentrate on medium-large ships (D5s, D7s). It's only recently that they've started using large numbers of small scout/raider ships, supported by a few medium and large vessels.

Well, back in TOS, they were the big ships. Each new level of upgrade makes the ships bigger.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:40 pm

Remeber, too, that advances in directed-energy weapon power, for the Klingons, REQUIRES an increase in size - disruptors are unable to use coupled emitters, as phasers are.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:45 pm

Mikey wrote:Remeber, too, that advances in directed-energy weapon power, for the Klingons, REQUIRES an increase in size - disruptors are unable to use coupled emitters, as phasers are.

Have you got a canon quote for that? You seem to be getting DITL's canon and speculation sections mixed up.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:56 pm

No, sir, I have no canon, and I do not necessarily take DITL's spec as such. But I do recognize the logic inherent in that line of reasoning - why else would the Federation be the ONLY culture using such technology? Surely the tech has been around AT LEAST since the Ambassador-class; I don't think it could have been kept under wraps this long.

I would certainly concede that position if an alternative explanantion could be found.

Granitehewer · Post by **Granitehewer** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:03 pm

ps could you two,explain to me,the differences between quantum, photon and transphasic torpedos please?
thanks

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:08 pm

Transphasic: no I can't. Seafort will have to cover that one.

Photon torpedo: uses a M/AM reaction as its detonation.

Quantum torpedo: as I understand it, and hoefully someone will correct me if necessary, uses M/AM reaction to trigger some sort of zero-point or "mini-singularity" energy release.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:11 pm

Simple - the Federation wants variable-setting weapons, rather than the single kill option. We know that hand phasers can do this, from more episodes than can be counted, and we know the main shipboard phasers can do it from "A Piece of the Action". Disruptors apparently don't have this multi-setting ability. Take this quote from "Second Skin":

DAX
Benjamin... those residual
electrostatic charges... they could
also have been left by a disrupter...
or a phaser set to kill.

This tells us that "electrostatic charges" are a byproduct of the dissapearing effect of kill-setting phasers. The fact that the two possibilities of "a disruptor" and "a phaser set to kill" are separated, rather than being refered to together, implies that disruptors have only this setting.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:15 pm

Granitehewer wrote:ps could you two,explain to me,the differences between quantum, photon and transphasic torpedos please?
thanks

Different first word.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:17 pm

Granitehewer wrote:ps could you two,explain to me,the differences between quantum, photon and transphasic torpedos please?
thanks

My own interpretation of the weapons are:

PT: goes bang on contact or in proximity.

QT: technobabbles its way through shields and hull, then goes bang.

TT: much the same as QTs, likely an updated version to deal with countermeasures developed against QT technobabble. They may also be dedicated anti-Borg weapons, to take advantage of their tendency to self-destruct if key technology is damaged or malfunctions ("Best of Both Worlds Pt 2", "Dark Frontier").

Quality vs Quantity

Re: Quality vs Quantity