Captain Seafort wrote:And why shouldn't we? Flawed VFX introduces an additional entity, which should be rejected per the razor.
Like I said, it hits my common sense limit.
I would say that that goes the other way - he's specifically stating that the ships were that close together, and came up with an excuse to do it.
Yes, in that case, but later on they don't bother establishing the excuses they just go with the looks cool aspect without any reason for it.
Maybe not for having pretty VFX, but I certainly got much more of an "oh s**t" feeling from seeing the E-nil hanging at an odd angle with its lights out in BoT than anything in TNG+ Trek. Plus the quick cuts between the E-nil and its target added pace while still allowing the course of the battle to be followed (unlike the DS9 actions or the nBSG nonsense).
Yes, they created the tension in a different way back then. Better way, too, IMO.
With that one we've got canon proof that a few proficient hackers could wreak havoc with a Fed ship - Distant Origin.
Oh, I accept that people do hack the security. I just don't accept that their security is therefore poor. But it's a different argument.
I don't. Mike Wong does, and that's who I derive most of my GCS engineering arguments from. If a professional engineer says it ignores engineering principles, I'm willing to go along with that.
I'm not, since there's no such thing as a professional warp systems engineer on planet Earth right now.
We're talking about fictional science which follows arbitrary rules here. A present day engineer cannot possibly say anything substantive about how the systems are designed.
They're theories that, while certainly meriting investigation, don't stand up to said investigation. If weapons power decreased with range then why was the Phoenix just as effective in The Wounded as the two GCSes were in SoA? If it was targeting problems full stop, then why do they only seem to turn up in battle? ECM explains this.
We don't know what the Phoenix was up against in The Wounded. It's described as a Cardassian warship, but we never see it and it's never established as a Galor so it isn't a valid comparison.
I'd buy the ECM explanation if it had ever once been mentioned. It surely would be mentioned, if it was a real explanation. It's just not.
Fair enough. It is nonetheless a common tactic of cloaked ships (rather than striking from extreme range), otherwise they'd have been scratching their heads rather than immediately thing "cloaked ship".
And it remains true that the only reason they didn't attack from waited until even tens of thousands of km in this particular case was to cut reaction times with a close in attack.
Hardly.
Yes, exactly.
We know that there are many different not-so-high-energy phenomena that disrupt sensors, many of which can be generated artificiality. We know that ships are capable of hitting targets from extremely long range, but almost never do so in combat. Therefore there is something unusual about ship-to-ship combat, and interference of some kind generated by the opposing ships seems the most probable difference - ergo ECM, either deliberate or accidental as a result of the ships' other combat related operations (shields, weapons fire, maybe even their own sensors).
And again, simply declaring it the answer does not make it the answer. Most especially given that they never mention ECM being an issue in battles, never mention using it or being subjected to it.
It's a possible answer, certainly. But that's all it is.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
