www.ditl.org

So simple "bigger is better" is not always right.

Our stance the whole way through this thread was that we were talking about warships of similar tech level. It was you who introduced the Red Herrings of lack of military orientation and disparate tech levels, so don't think you can claim a victory here.

Perhaps.

Not perhaps; yes. Provide reasoning or concede this fact.

Which did not involve starships.

Irrelevant. The basic facts are the same.

As many =/= all.

So fracking what? A smaller ship won't be able to bring all its weapons to bear either, so just what's your point? A bigger ship can bring more and bigger guns to bear than a smaller ship. Saying that it can't bring all of them to bear is bloody obvious, and none of us have been contesting that issue all along. Stop with the strawmen and adress our actual points.

Do you have any proof that a smaller ship would not be able to generate enough power to fire it's phasers at there upper limit? Most likely not. Why would Starfleet or anyone design a ship that could not fully power its weapons?

He was pointing out that a bigger ship would have more power available to use in its weapons.

I was answering Rocheys point. It could be said that they still are a danger. A photon torpedo fired from a GCS is just as powerful as one fired from an Intrepid.

And a GCS could have more tubes and far more torps, thus giving it a massive advantage over an Intrepid. In addition, the GCS's more powerful shields would make it more likely to take a barrage of protorps than an Intrepid.

Again, and you still fail to put the whole argument together, if the larger ship can't bring its weapons to bear then the advantage is taken away.

Again, you fail to realise that a properly designed warship would have effectively 720^o coverage with its heavier guns, and that the fact it can't bring 100% of its armament to bear is irrelevant.

Your right they could not bring more simultaneously, but they would be able to bring all, or nearly all of its weapons to bear through out the battle.

So what? The comparatively few weapons the battleship could bring to bear would be more than enough to cripple or destroy an attacking ship that's smaller and weaker than it.

No you are discussing naval facts, not me. There may be some principals the same but there are still a large amount of difference. Naval ships don't have energy shields, phasers, the don't move like starships. All of these change the name of the game.

The presence of new tech still does not change it enough to make analogies worthless. Trek is very similar to naval warfare in a number of respects. The only effective way in which it is dissimilar is that they can move in the third dimension, which is mostly irrelevant when discussing the advantages of size.

It does in the ways I have described.

No, it doesn't. Why? Because even if it was completely immobile, it would still be able to bring a larger quantity of far more powerful guns to bear at greater range, and absorb superior amounts of damage before losing its shields, thus allowing it to destroy a smaller attacking ship.

Yes, exactly we see a small ship just about take out a large station. What was that about bigger is.......

We see a comparatively small ship do some damage to the station that was quickly allieviated.

If you are debating that then fine, I proving that in one-on-one situations larger ships may not always be superior.

And you've failed misserably in that angle, too.

In some instances yes, if the larger ship is powerful enough to destroy the smaller ship in only a few shots, of if the smaller ship can't harm the larger one. These are not absolutes.

As a matter of fact, they are absolutes. A larger ship will always have larger generators, larger guns, stronger shields and a greater quantity of weapons. Thus it will in all cases outclass a smaller ship.

Or the federation ship were better overall designed. Unless you can prove that it was a technological advantage all we know is that the Federation ships were better overall, not just better weapons and shields.

Hello? The simple fact that they can go head-to-head with a dedicated waship and win is clear proof of an advantage in weapons and shielding. Just what part of that is unclear?

....and those point make them very useful in certain situations. It does not mean that they can't be finessed to death.

Short of divine intervention, it does.

Really, and you know this for a fact?

Yes.

Proof?

WTF? Are you seriously arguing that it isn't the reactor taht's responsible for the power that can be pumped into a gun?
Tell me, if it isn't the reactor that supplies the power (and thus decides just how powerful the gun will be), then just what the hell does? Is it powered by elves?

As stated it would not be simultaneously, but they could still be used. Also, you have not offered any proof from canon that a larger ship with the same types of weapons as a smaller ship would be able to cause more damage with each individual weapon.

Do you seriously need this explained to you? It's Common Sense 101.
More power available = more power that can be fired = bigger boom.

You have yet to show that that is true in all situations.

Take your head out of the sand. We've proven it numerous times over the course of the thread. You then resorted to dishonestly changing the subject to a small warship Vs a large non-military ship with worse tech, and your only "argument" so far has been to repeatedly state obvious facts such as "a big ship can't bring 100% of its armament to bear" that are utterly irrelevant.

Either show us how a smaller ship could take on a bigger ship and win, or concede the argument.

Again, you fail to realise that a properly designed warship would have effectively 720o coverage with its heavier guns, and that the fact it can't bring 100% of its armament to bear is irrelevant.

So in Nemesis, the Enterprise-E was not at a marked disadvantage being repeatedly attacked from the rear? It was only able to bring "full" torpedo firepower to bear on the Scimitar once in the battle if I recall.

But let's take firing from behind the cloak out of the equation. What if a ship had 50% the firepower of the Sovereign but the manueverability to stay at whatever angle of the Soveriegn it chose?

Point being (and I believe this is where M52 was going) to simply say the bigger ship wtih the bigger guns is better assumes we're talking about early TNG where ships just faced off and fired at each other face to face.

Other examples: Defiant vs. the mirror Negh'var (the huge one), the Valiant vs. the big Dominion Super cruiser (lost the battle of course but was able to custom hit selected weak points because of manueverability), Odo in the runabout vs. a Dominion attack ship, etc. None of this is to say bigger guns aren't desirable... what I mean is that there is a price to pay for building a huge ship with massive guns that can be outmanuevered by quicker ships.

If you're talking about a sphere shaped ship with equivalent firepower at every possible angle, then what you're saying makes sense about warship design. But I'm not aware of any piece of non-Borg military hardware, either in real life or in Trek, which fit that design description.

Take your head out of the sand. We've proven it numerous times over the course of the thread. You then resorted to dishonestly changing the subject to a small warship Vs a large non-military ship with worse tech, and your only "argument" so far has been to repeatedly state obvious facts such as "a big ship can't bring 100% of its armament to bear" that are utterly irrelevant.

Above examples. How exactly is it irrelevant if a ship can stay out of the firing arc of a larger's ships biggest guns? It's not irrelevant whatsoever.

Either show us how a smaller ship could take on a bigger ship and win, or concede the argument.

Several were given above.

Several were given above.

All of them were meaningless. You are pointing out battles between different races with different tech levels.

This is a pound vs pound debate. When factoring in ships of the same race and of the same tech. Bigger always equals better. Saying otherwise is just lying and you'd be better served by shutting up.

Duskofdead wrote:So in Nemesis, the Enterprise-E was not at a marked disadvantage being repeatedly attacked from the rear?

Not at all - look at the sort of firepower the E-E was unleashing every single time the Scimitar attacked from that angle.

What if a ship had 50% the firepower of the Sovereign but the manueverability to stay at whatever angle of the Soveriegn it chose?

Then it would be hit by different arrays and PT launchers. Not a great help.

Point being (and I believe this is where M52 was going) to simply say the bigger ship wtih the bigger guns is better assumes we're talking about early TNG where ships just faced off and fired at each other face to face.

He's assuming that unless your opponent is directly ahead, you're helpless. This is bullshit.

Defiant vs. the mirror Negh'var (the huge one)

A ship that proved surprisingly weak, and the Defiant was still being hurt badly by the end.

the Valiant vs. the big Dominion Super cruiser (lost the battle of course but was able to custom hit selected weak points because of manueverability)

Exactly - it LOST.

Odo in the runabout vs. a Dominion attack ship

Targeting a specific point of weakness that he wouldn't even have known about had it not been for Weyoun.

If you're talking about a sphere shaped ship with equivalent firepower at every possible angle, then what you're saying makes sense about warship design. But I'm not aware of any piece of non-Borg military hardware, either in real life or in Trek, which fit that design description.

A sphere is a very poor design, because it doesn't have a low-profile high-firepower aspect. All good warships do - even the GCS does

How exactly is it irrelevant if a ship can stay out of the firing arc of a larger's ships biggest guns?

It isn't. However, this isn't possible for Fed ships - their big guns are spread pretty evenly.

Then it would be hit by different arrays and PT launchers. Not a great help.

Of course it's a great help. You have apparently forgotten that shields can be weakened at specific points. Such as the Kazon repeatedly attacking the same vector of Voyager over and over. And not all ships have the same torpedo firepower from every possible angle of the ship. In fact, most of them don't. What if a small, manueverable ship were hitting the tight port or starboard of virtually any Federation ship other than the Akira (which purportedly has side-firing launchers)?

He's assuming that unless your opponent is directly ahead, you're helpless. This is bullshit.

Someone said helpless... when? You're all-or-nothing arguing. No Federation ship we know of has equal firepower at any possible angle. And even if it did, if its opponent was so manueverable it could attack from whatever vector it chose, it would have the luxury of whittling down one area of shielding while taking the minimum possible amount of damage (by not allowing much of the ship's weapons array to fire at it). This tactic is not just theoretical, it has been used several times. Even the Defiant, the ship you tout as the first sensible thing the Federation has done because of its warship intention, has nowhere near the firepower in the rear or ventral as it does on the front and dorsal.

A ship that proved surprisingly weak, and the Defiant was still being hurt badly by the end.

Um, how was it weak? It was being repeatedly battered at extremely close range by a ship so small and fast that its enormous (and, from what we could see, not very agile) targetting and weapon systems were able to reliably hit. That is a weakness of a huge (and therefore presumably less manueverable) warship design bearing high-firepower guns in Trek. It was, in fact, fairly close to the sort of design you tout as ideal. Yet if there had been two Defiants there with equally competent crews the mirror Negh'var would have been ingloriously destroyed by two small ships which almost certainly cost a tiny fraction of the construction resources.

Exactly - it LOST.

So if using the same resources the Dominion created 200 of those large battlecruisers while the Klingons made 600 Birds of Prey and the Federation made 400 Defiants who would do better in a war?

Targeting a specific point of weakness that he wouldn't even have known about had it not been for Weyoun.

Yet still accomplishing the same goal that might have required a much larger and more powerful ship if it didn't have the luxury of manuevering over a weak spot. You seem to be under the impression that no other ship would have a relatively weakest area or potentially vulnerable targetting spot or that the ability to repeatedly hit from the same vector would never constitute an advantage in weakening shields. Again, what if a tiny and extremely agile ship could hug the Defiant's ventral?

A sphere is a very poor design, because it doesn't have a low-profile high-firepower aspect. All good warships do - even the GCS does

You don't need to invent a device to superheat a knight's armor till it melts and kills him inside. A weapon that can pierce his armor at one point will do the same job with less hassle.

It isn't. However, this isn't possible for Fed ships - their big guns are spread pretty evenly.

I'm confused, most of the time you are railing about the piss-poor design of Federation ships because they aren't dedicated warships. And yet the one dedicated warship, the Defiant, has no visibly observed rear or ventral phaser coverage and no weapons at all on the ventral. The GCS has no torpedo coverage on the dorsal or ventral, port or starboard. Being able to stay in those vectors would not constitute a battle advantage?

Of course it's a great help. You have apparently forgotten that shields can be weakened at specific points. Such as the Kazon repeatedly attacking the same vector of Voyager over and over. And not all ships have the same torpedo firepower from every possible angle of the ship. In fact, most of them don't. What if a small, manueverable ship were hitting the tight port or starboard of virtually any Federation ship other than the Akira (which purportedly has side-firing launchers)?

Then it'd be hit by numerous powerful phaser banks and possibly torps while attempting to do the very difficult task of making its guns hit a single small area on every attack run. It'd lose pretty quickly, and that's even ignoring the fact that the battleship could try something radical like....oh, I don't know...maybe diverting power to that shield section?

Someone said helpless... when? You're all-or-nothing arguing. No Federation ship we know of has equal firepower at any possible angle. And even if it did, if its opponent was so manueverable it could attack from whatever vector it chose, it would have the luxury of whittling down one area of shielding while taking the minimum possible amount of damage (by not allowing much of the ship's weapons array to fire at it). This tactic is not just theoretical, it has been used several times. Even the Defiant, the ship you tout as the first sensible thing the Federation has done because of its warship intention, has nowhere near the firepower in the rear or ventral as it does on the front and dorsal.

Note that we're talking about a properly designed battleship. Most current UFP ships definitely do not fit into the "well designed battleship" category.
The Defiant class is a destroyer and would naturaly have most of its armament on the front because it's maneouverable enough to keep the enemy in its forward arcs.
The Akira is the closest example to what we're talking about, with good armament covering every angle of aproach, but even that's not too close to what we're talking about.

Um, how was it weak? It was being repeatedly battered at extremely close range by a ship so small and fast that its enormous (and, from what we could see, not very agile) targetting and weapon systems were able to reliably hit. That is a weakness of a huge (and therefore presumably less manueverable) warship design bearing high-firepower guns in Trek. It was, in fact, fairly close to the sort of design you tout as ideal. Yet if there had been two Defiants there with equally competent crews the mirror Negh'var would have been ingloriously destroyed by two small ships which almost certainly cost a tiny fraction of the construction resources.

Please note we're discussing ships from comparable tech levels. The KE has been shown to be quite a bit below the UFP in terms of firepower and shielding.

So if using the same resources the Dominion created 200 of those large battlecruisers while the Klingons made 600 Birds of Prey and the Federation made 400 Defiants who would do better in a war?

The Dominion, because neither the BoPs or Defiants have the capacity for extended operations away from their bases.

And, again, we're talking about ships of the same tech level.

Yet still accomplishing the same goal that might have required a much larger and more powerful ship if it didn't have the luxury of manuevering over a weak spot. You seem to be under the impression that no other ship would have a relatively weakest area or potentially vulnerable targetting spot or that the ability to repeatedly hit from the same vector would never constitute an advantage in weakening shields. Again, what if a tiny and extremely agile ship could hug the Defiant's ventral?

The idea of the "hit this spot once and the ship neatly blows up" was incredibly dumb. Needless to say, a properly designed vessel would not have such a spot, and any possible weak spots or stress areas would be covered by heavier armour to negate their weakness (like what the UFP did when they slapped more armour on the Dominion War era GCS's necks).

You don't need to invent a device to superheat a knight's armor till it melts and kills him inside. A weapon that can pierce his armor at one point will do the same job with less hassle.

And just what's that supposed to prove?

I'm confused, most of the time you are railing about the piss-poor design of Federation ships because they aren't dedicated warships. And yet the one dedicated warship, the Defiant, has no visibly observed rear or ventral phaser coverage and no weapons at all on the ventral. The GCS has no torpedo coverage on the dorsal or ventral, port or starboard. Being able to stay in those vectors would not constitute a battle advantage?

Keep in mind we're talking about battleships. Not destroyers, and not jack-of-all-trade vessels. Note how the Akira has 720^o coverage with most of its heaviest weapons. That's akin to what we're discussing.

Then it'd be hit by numerous powerful phaser banks and possibly torps while attempting to do the very difficult task of making its guns hit a single small area on every attack run. It'd lose pretty quickly, and that's even ignoring the fact that the battleship could try something radical like....oh, I don't know...maybe diverting power to that shield section?

You are either ignoring or failing to get my point. The point is a more maneuverable ship can choose what to hit, and what to be hit by. Saying "ah well, there's a phaser strip on that side, no worries" is just waving off something that hurts your argument. An enemy that can choose the actual positioning of the fighting has an advantage. If the ship is manueverable enough, it essentially gets to "choose" to only be hit from the weakest possible side. If that's being hit by 1 or 2 phaser arrays instead of being hit by 4 plus torpedo launchers, that's an advantage. And being able to hti the same shield of choice over and over is an advantage over being a lumbering larger ship that just has to sort of hit whatever angle it can grab as a quicker ship is dancing circles. Of course, they are both advantages we can choose to just ignore, I suppose, if they hurt our argument at all

Note that we're talking about a properly designed battleship. Most current UFP ships definitely do not fit into the "well designed battleship" category.
The Defiant class is a destroyer and would naturaly have most of its armament on the front because it's maneouverable enough to keep the enemy in its forward arcs.
The Akira is the closest example to what we're talking about, with good armament covering every angle of aproach, but even that's not too close to what we're talking about.

A properly designed battleship doesn't exist in Trek by the standards you guys lay out, so it's kind of a moot point. Weapon coverage all over is not the same thing as saying there is no stronger or weaker point where firepower can be focused. The big guns on a Negh'var, for instance... can they fire at something to the dorsal of the Negh'var? I don't think they can unless they can somehow travel through the ship's hull The shots it fired looked remarkably slow, as well. I doubt disruptors of that magnitude could even hit a non-stationary target. So if you took a Negh'var and slapped more of those disruptors on every angle of the ship it would still be pretty useless against anything but a station.

Please note we're discussing ships from comparable tech levels. The KE has been shown to be quite a bit below the UFP in terms of firepower and shielding.

You mean like a Galaxy Class ship vs. a Galaxy Class with a Type XII phaser slapped on? Okay, argument conceded. But what about a Galaxy with a Type XII phaser slapped on vs. a Galaxy with an extra impulse engine? That's where it gets stickier. The type XII (assuming a single array somewhere) can't hit from 720 degrees so its advantage might never come to bear on an opponent enjoying much greater manueverability.

The Dominion, because neither the BoPs or Defiants have the capacity for extended operations away from their bases.

LOL nice evasive action. Alright, how about in a BATTLE?

The idea of the "hit this spot once and the ship neatly blows up" was incredibly dumb. Needless to say, a properly designed vessel would not have such a spot, and any possible weak spots or stress areas would be covered by heavier armour to negate their weakness (like what the UFP did when they slapped more armour on the Dominion War era GCS's necks).

I agree but it's canon so it's what we work with. (So there is incidentally another dedicated warship which leaves a lot to be desired within canon..) The idea of create ships with extra armor or shields slapped over everything so that the ship is equally protected at every angle, and the idea of create ships with heavy weapons pointing every direction so that high firepower can be directed anywhere, is fantasy thinking. Especially if we stick IU. The ablative armor generator if in fleetwide use would provide the kind of "no advantage attacking from any particular angle" element but shields do not, because they come from localized generators which can be strained or damaged, and which cannot just be repeatedly reinforced forever.

And just what's that supposed to prove?

That if you just slather everything in platemail someone will eventually invent a longbow.

Keep in mind we're talking about battleships. Not destroyers, and not jack-of-all-trade vessels. Note how the Akira has 720^o coverage with most of its heaviest weapons. That's akin to what we're discussing.

So your whole argument is, one Akira vs. another with a lot more guns, the one with more guns wins? If you just said that, there would have been no argument.

You are either ignoring or failing to get my point. The point is a more maneuverable ship can choose what to hit, and what to be hit by. Saying "ah well, there's a phaser strip on that side, no worries" is just waving off something that hurts your argument. An enemy that can choose the actual positioning of the fighting has an advantage. If the ship is manueverable enough, it essentially gets to "choose" to only be hit from the weakest possible side. If that's being hit by 1 or 2 phaser arrays instead of being hit by 4 plus torpedo launchers, that's an advantage. And being able to hti the same shield of choice over and over is an advantage over being a lumbering larger ship that just has to sort of hit whatever angle it can grab as a quicker ship is dancing circles. Of course, they are both advantages we can choose to just ignore, I suppose, if they hurt our argument at all

I'm ignoring nothing. I got your point completely, and dismissed it as mostly irrelevant. That it can choose where to attack is an advantage, certainly, but hardly an overwhelming one for the simple fact that a properly designed vessel will be able to hit an enemy with heavy weapons regardless of its position and also be able to reroute power to a failing shield section to keep it up.

A properly designed battleship doesn't exist in Trek by the standards you guys lay out, so it's kind of a moot point.

The whole point of this thread is hypothetical. Discussing a hypothetical battleship is perfectly relevant.

Weapon coverage all over is not the same thing as saying there is no stronger or weaker point where firepower can be focused. The big guns on a Negh'var, for instance... can they fire at something to the dorsal of the Negh'var? I don't think they can unless they can somehow travel through the ship's hull The shots it fired looked remarkably slow, as well. I doubt disruptors of that magnitude could even hit a non-stationary target. So if you took a Negh'var and slapped more of those disruptors on every angle of the ship it would still be pretty useless against anything but a station.

Care to point out where we said the Neg'var is a good design for a battleship?

You mean like a Galaxy Class ship vs. a Galaxy Class with a Type XII phaser slapped on? Okay, argument conceded. But what about a Galaxy with a Type XII phaser slapped on vs. a Galaxy with an extra impulse engine? That's where it gets stickier. The type XII (assuming a single array somewhere) can't hit from 720 degrees so its advantage might never come to bear on an opponent enjoying much greater manueverability.

Could you please find out what a debate is about before jumping in?
The whole point of this debate is M52 denying the simple fact that, in military terms, bigger = better. His argument was that a smaller but more maneouverable ship could defeat a battleship and ignoring reality. Suddenly switching this to a modded GCS versus another modded GCS is a complete Red Herring.

LOL nice evasive action. Alright, how about in a BATTLE?

You're ignoring the "similar tech level" thing again.

I agree but it's canon so it's what we work with.

Correct, it's canon that one ship has a serious weakness. It does not follow that every other ship, even those of different races with different design methods, would also have them.

. (So there is incidentally another dedicated warship which leaves a lot to be desired within canon..)

That the Trekverse lacks any inteligent design teams has no bearing on the facts of this thread.

The idea of create ships with extra armor or shields slapped over everything so that the ship is equally protected at every angle, and the idea of create ships with heavy weapons pointing every direction so that high firepower can be directed anywhere, is fantasy thinking. Especially if we stick IU. The ablative armor generator if in fleetwide use would provide the kind of "no advantage attacking from any particular angle" element but shields do not, because they come from localized generators which can be strained or damaged, and which cannot just be repeatedly reinforced forever.

No one said it would be equaly protected at any angle. Stop strawmanning.

That if you just slather everything in platemail someone will eventually invent a longbow.

And then you develop better armour. It's the reason ship classes become obsolete. So what? By that logic there's no point in the USN building Nimitz supercarriers, because they'll one day be inefective against Russian ships. For the time being they're the most powerful ships around, and even in the future when they're surpassed by other ships they'll still be highly effective. It's the same with a space faring battleship. Just take a look at the Excelsior.

So your whole argument is, one Akira vs. another with a lot more guns, the one with more guns wins? If you just said that, there would have been no argument.

No, it's not. The argument is that a bigger ship with bigger generators, bigger and more numerous guns and stronger shields > small ship with advantage in maneouverability.

Captain Seafort wrote: No perhaps about it.

Then prove it.

Irrelevent - it demonstrates the case, and I've pointed out repeatedly that it's even more true of starships than of RL ships.

What you have pointed out is just incorrect. I have explained how they are different, you have just repeated that they are.

So?

....not all of the weapons will come into play and the number advantage is reduced of goes away.

Of course a ship should always be able to get the best performance out of its weapons. My point is that for a big ship that performance would be better than a smaller ship.

Proof please. Were is there proof in canon that the same type of phasers would do more damage on a large ship then a small one?

Correct, however PTs are far less dangerous to starships than RL torpedoes are to battleships, as starship 'armour' (their shields) cannot be bypassed in the same way as a battleship's belt.

True, but photon torpedoes will still do damage.

Wrong. It would still have the advantage of more weapons, more powerful individual weapons and stronger defences, regardless of whether they can hit an attacker with 100% of their weapons or not.

1. More weapons only a advantage if it can bring them to bear, you need maneuverability for that.

2. More powerful, it might, but you have not proven that larger ships always have more powerful weapons. A type X phaser on a large ship may very well do the same amount of damage as on a small ship.

3. Stronger defenses, yes, but a more maneuverable ship get to control were it hits its opponent and were it opponent hit it.

So

1) The same is true of the larger ship.

2) The fact that they can use all their weapons at different points does not increase the firepower they can bring to bear.

1. No, perhaps you should try and read the arguments I have presented.

2. Individual weapons need time to recharge, they also can get damages in battle. 2 of any type of phaser is going to be better then 1 of the same type.

Protection. Firepower. Mobility. These factors dominate warfare. They always have since Ug bashed Og with a rock, and they always will. How they are achieved is irrelevant.

Yes they have. What is not irrelevant is that you need all three and there importance is different for different types of warfare.

Apart from that, starship technology makes raw power output more important than during the world wars, not less, as I have pointed out time and time again.

You have pointed it out, but not proved it. Unless you can prove weapons of the same type do more damage from larger ships then maneuverability is still a factor.

No it doesn't. Go and watch DS9.

I have, I see a lot of small ship in those large battles. They must be there for some reason.......

No we didn't - we saw a large ship hurt the station slightly more than smaller ships could (i.e. at all). Note that the station rapidly got its shields back, and was ready to continue.

....and had the battle continued who would have won? We don't know.

No, you're not - you're attempting to do so, and failing miserably.

It you who have been asked to provide evidence to prove parts of your claims, but have not.

They are - they are inherent in the ships' relative strengths. More powerful ships will always be able to kill less powerful ships in fewer shots than the reverse could be achieved.

Ok

Explain how a jack-of-all-trades ship could be successful in battle against a purpose-built warship without having superior weapons and shielding technology.

A better balance of offensive capability, defensive capability and maneuverability.

Explain how this could be done.

I have been through out this discussion.

Yes.

citation needed

1) The Intrepid has never demonstrated sufficient manoeuverability to dodge torpedoes

2) I see you're completely ignoring the second point. We saw the GCS used as a battleship. We never even saw an Intrepid in a battlefleet.

1. Would not have to dodge in the Intrepid could stay out the the GCS firing arcs.

2. True, but it was not designed as a battleship, nor was the Intrepid. That is why I'm using them as the examples.

You want proof that power comes from reactors instead of thin air?

No, I want proof that the normal maximum output of phasers are dependent on the reactors. Or more to the point a small

The Dominion battleship was much, much larger then the valiant, and in that situation the power advantage was great enough to overcome any maneuverability advantage, plus the Valiant flew right into the firing path of the Warships main weapons. Wolf 359 the Borg had a tech advantage. The Federation fleet really could not damage the cube or protect themselves. In the fleet actions involving DS9 we also see a much large station taking out much smaller ships easy, larger ship were still a danger. FC battle?

The battle in FC.

You accept that larger ships are more effective then. Thank you.

As stated it would not be simultaneously, but they could still be used.

Irrelevent. Only simultaneous attacks can be counted in effective firepower.

Big ship = more room for reactors and fuel and more room for bigger weapons = more power to weapons.

Bigger weapons fine. But if two ships have the same weapons the larger ships weapons will not be stronger.

If the same design of weapons were being used, then the larger ship would be able to mount more of them, and would therefore have greater effective firepower.

....and they would only be useful if able to be brought to bear. Don't know how many more time I need to say it.

I have done so repeatedly.

Not really.

Rochey wrote: Our stance the whole way through this thread was that we were talking about warships of similar tech level. It was you who introduced the Red Herrings of lack of military orientation and disparate tech levels, so don't think you can claim a victory here.

Ok if you say so 8)

Not perhaps; yes. Provide reasoning or concede this fact.

I have been providing reasoning why. It is you that has been trying to make the argument that with the same tech level a larger ship will always beat a smaller one. You have yet to provide evidence that;

1. Weapons of the same type would do more damage on a larger ship.

2. Shields strength is based on the size of the generators. We know the Sov has stronger shields then a GCS but we do not have proof that the Sov generators are larger.

Irrelevant. The basic facts are the same.

Far from, naval = 2d battle, naval = cannons that fire heavy shells, naval ships can't bank back and forth, naval ships don;t have phaser of shields.

So fracking what? A smaller ship won't be able to bring all its weapons to bear either, so just what's your point? A bigger ship can bring more and bigger guns to bear than a smaller ship. Saying that it can't bring all of them to bear is bloody obvious, and none of us have been contesting that issue all along. Stop with the strawmen and adress our actual points.

That is the point. A smaller more maneuverable ship would be able to sweep in and then turn exposing its opponent to more of its weapons. While the larger ship could only use the weapons in the firing arc the smaller ship is in. It would depend of the designs of the ships.

He was pointing out that a bigger ship would have more power available to use in its weapons.

Yes, that does not mean that weapons system would be able to use or handle that power.

And a GCS could have more tubes and far more torps, thus giving it a massive advantage over an Intrepid. In addition, the GCS's more powerful shields would make it more likely to take a barrage of protorps than an Intrepid.

Could have. I chose these two because nether were dedicated war ships.

Again, you fail to realise that a properly designed warship would have effectively 720^o coverage with its heavier guns, and that the fact it can't bring 100% of its armament to bear is irrelevant.

Not being able to bring torpedoes to bear is irrelevant? Only being able to use one of two arrays that could be damaged, could over heat, have to recharge between shots is irrelevant?

So what? The comparatively few weapons the battleship could bring to bear would be more than enough to cripple or destroy an attacking ship that's smaller and weaker than it.

The Sov was smaller then the Scimitar and it did not take it out that quick. The Lokata was larger then the Defiant and it did not go down that quick.

The presence of new tech still does not change it enough to make analogies worthless. Trek is very similar to naval warfare in a number of respects. The only effective way in which it is dissimilar is that they can move in the third dimension, which is mostly irrelevant when discussing the advantages of size.

....you forget that we are also discussing maneuverability, and the straight of energy weapons, phaser to be exact on different size ships.

No, it doesn't. Why? Because even if it was completely immobile, it would still be able to bring a larger quantity of far more powerful guns to bear at greater range, and absorb superior amounts of damage before losing its shields, thus allowing it to destroy a smaller attacking ship.

Far more powerful weapons? you have provided mo proof. Provide evidence that the type X phaser on a GCS is any more powerful than on a Defiant, or a Type XII phaser on a Sov is more powerful then on a Prometheus. Also prove that shield straight is directly connect to generator size.

We see a comparatively small ship do some damage to the station that was quickly allieviated.

.....becasue the Klingons boarded the station. They were trying to capture DS9 not destroy it. The Negh'var could have fire again and again.

And you've failed misserably in that angle, too.

.....really I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your assumptions regarding weapons straights when monted on different size ships.

As a matter of fact, they are absolutes. A larger ship will always have larger generators, larger guns, stronger shields and a greater quantity of weapons. Thus it will in all cases outclass a smaller ship.

The Sov and the Prometheus both have type XII phasers, so did the Lokata. The Sov and the Defiant both have quantum torpedoes. Also provide evidence that shield straight is tied to generator size.

Hello? The simple fact that they can go head-to-head with a dedicated waship and win is clear proof of an advantage in weapons and shielding. Just what part of that is unclear?

What great logic, I say the bigger ships with the same tech always win. Since the smaller ships wins they must have better tech. The only problem is that you have not proven your stance and you have not provided proof that the Federation had a tech advantage over the Dominion.

Short of divine intervention, it does.

Not until you provide proof to back up your claims

Yes.

citation needed

WTF? Are you seriously arguing that it isn't the reactor taht's responsible for the power that can be pumped into a gun?
Tell me, if it isn't the reactor that supplies the power (and thus decides just how powerful the gun will be), then just what the hell does? Is it powered by elves?

Wow.......I know the generator provides the power, what I'm saying is that the amount of power that generator puts out may not control the top power out put of the phasers. An example, if a type X phaser array max out put is 10GW and the generator powering it puts out 30GW the phaser will still only be able to put out 10GW.

Do you seriously need this explained to you? It's Common Sense 101.
More power available = more power that can be fired = bigger boom.

Plug you computer into a power source more powerful then your outlet and see what happens. Just because you can generate more power does not mean your phasers can make use of it.

Take your head out of the sand. We've proven it numerous times over the course of the thread. You then resorted to dishonestly changing the subject to a small warship Vs a large non-military ship with worse tech, and your only "argument" so far has been to repeatedly state obvious facts such as "a big ship can't bring 100% of its armament to bear" that are utterly irrelevant.

Either show us how a smaller ship could take on a bigger ship and win, or concede the argument.

I have give you many examples and you have shot passed them off based soley on assumptions that you have not provided any proof of. Plus you are defending the original argument that that with the same tech and designed for war the larger ship will always win, but have not provided proof. Just assumptions that larger generator mean phasers of the same type can fire more powerful bursts and that shield straight is dependent on generator size. If you cannot prove those you cannot prove that a larger ship will always when over a smaller one when the tech and purpose of design are the same.

I'm sorry but this has to be the funniest debate ever!

Deepcrush wrote:

I'm sorry but this has to be the funniest debate ever!

Agreed.

Dare I ask why?

Then prove it.

We have proven it, as anyone who's been reading this thread can easily see. It's not our problem if you can't grasp that.

What you have pointed out is just incorrect. I have explained how they are different, you have just repeated that they are.

Yes, they're different. But not different enough as to make the analogy worthless.

....not all of the weapons will come into play and the number advantage is reduced of goes away.

Incorrect, because they'll still have a larger amount of guns on (say) the forward arc of the ship than a smaller one due to the increased surface area.

Proof please. Were is there proof in canon that the same type of phasers would do more damage on a large ship then a small one?

Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

True, but photon torpedoes will still do damage.

Of course they will, no one's contested that. Just not as much, and they'd be a far greater threat to smaller ships than larger ones.

1. More weapons only a advantage if it can bring them to bear, you need maneuverability for that.

Wrong. All you need is a good design.

2. More powerful, it might, but you have not proven that larger ships always have more powerful weapons. A type X phaser on a large ship may very well do the same amount of damage as on a small ship.

Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

3. Stronger defenses, yes, but a more maneuverable ship get to control were it hits its opponent and were it opponent hit it.

Which is still not a large enough advantage to swing the battle in its favour.

Individual weapons need time to recharge, they also can get damages in battle. 2 of any type of phaser is going to be better then 1 of the same type.

And a larger ship can mount more guns. Ergo, better.

Yes they have. What is not irrelevant is that you need all three and there importance is different for different types of warfare.

That they're all important factors does not mean you need all three to triumph in battle.

You have pointed it out, but not proved it. Unless you can prove weapons of the same type do more damage from larger ships then maneuverability is still a factor.

Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

And just why are you assuming the larger ship will have the exact same types of weapons as the smaller ship? It won't, it will have bigger and more advanced weapons systems. So this whole tangent is a red herring.

I have, I see a lot of small ship in those large battles. They must be there for some reason.......

They're there for the same reason there were plenty of destroyers around in WWI despite the overwhelming power of the battleship.

....and had the battle continued who would have won? We don't know.

We don't know because we didn't see the end. We did see DS9 unleash an asswhooping on a Klingon fleet at one point, however, which would suggest that the station would have triumphed in the end.

A better balance of offensive capability, defensive capability and maneuverability.

Exactly how is a ship loaded with civilian quarters, amenities and science equipment going to have "A better balance of offensive capability, defensive capability and maneuverability" than a ship with all its internal space devoted to military equipment?

citation needed

You and reality should get in touch. You'll find the answer there. Seriously, it's basic logic.

1. Would not have to dodge in the Intrepid could stay out the the GCS firing arcs.

That'd be rather hard to do given that the GCS would have greater range and does not have any blindspots.

2. True, but it was not designed as a battleship, nor was the Intrepid. That is why I'm using them as the examples.

So you're attempting to rebute the fact that in military terms a bigger ship is always better......by using non-military ships as an example?
I'm pretty sure there's a saying about apples and oranges that covers this.

No, I want proof that the normal maximum output of phasers are dependent on the reactors. Or more to the point a small

Where do the phasers get their power from?
The reactor.
So what determines how much power a phaser has available to fire?
The reactor.

The battle in FC.

You accept that larger ships are more effective then. Thank you.

WTF? That's what we've been saying all along! Larger ship = better. If you're in agreement with that, then why the fuck have you been arguing the opposite?

Bigger weapons fine. But if two ships have the same weapons the larger ships weapons will not be stronger.

*sigh*
Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

....and they would only be useful if able to be brought to bear. Don't know how many more time I need to say it.

And the larger surface area available would allow them to mount more guns in each arc. Don't know how many more times I need to say it.

Not really.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

I have been providing reasoning why. It is you that has been trying to make the argument that with the same tech level a larger ship will always beat a smaller one. You have yet to provide evidence that;

1. Weapons of the same type would do more damage on a larger ship.

2. Shields strength is based on the size of the generators. We know the Sov has stronger shields then a GCS but we do not have proof that the Sov generators are larger.

1) Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

2) Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power for the shields. It's simple logic.

Far from, naval = 2d battle, naval = cannons that fire heavy shells, naval ships can't bank back and forth, naval ships don;t have phaser of shields.

Which are not large enough differences as to make comparisons worthless. Seriously, you've not explained how they're so dissimilar that we can't make comparisons. All you've done is keep repeating "well, they're not identical" while ignoring the fact that they are still similar enough to allow analogies to be made.

That is the point. A smaller more maneuverable ship would be able to sweep in and then turn exposing its opponent to more of its weapons. While the larger ship could only use the weapons in the firing arc the smaller ship is in. It would depend of the designs of the ships.

And with its more powerful and more numerous guns and superior cooling units, the larger ship would still be able to smack down the more maneouverable ship.

Could have. I chose these two because nether were dedicated war ships.

Which, again, is ignoring the whole point of this bloody debate in the first place.

Not being able to bring torpedoes to bear is irrelevant?

This may shock you, but torpedoes can turn.
And just what's to stop them shoving a minimum of one tube on each fire arc? Oh yeah, nothing.

Only being able to use one of two arrays that could be damaged, could over heat, have to recharge between shots is irrelevant?

Yes, it is irrelevant, because even with one array available the battleship would still be more than capable of blasting a smaller ship apart due to its superior power reserves, armour, ability to absorb damage, redundancy and shielding.

The Sov was smaller then the Scimitar and it did not take it out that quick. The Lokata was larger then the Defiant and it did not go down that quick.

What part of similar tech levels did you miss? The Scimitar is a completely alien ship, and we know nothing about it, and the Excelsior class was close to a century old at that point.

Oh, and the Scimitar actualy won the fight. So thanks for proving my point.

....you forget that we are also discussing maneuverability, and the straight of energy weapons, phaser to be exact on different size ships.

Well whoop-de-fracking-doo. Care to point out how this invalidates the analogy of bigger = better using naval vessels when discussing size?

Far more powerful weapons? you have provided mo proof. Provide evidence that the type X phaser on a GCS is any more powerful than on a Defiant, or a Type XII phaser on a Sov is more powerful then on a Prometheus. Also prove that shield straight is directly connect to generator size.

How about no? How about you explain why the battleship suddenly has the exact same type of armament as a smaller ship, despite being able to mount bigger and more powerful guns? In case you've missed it, neither me nor Seafort has stated the battleship would have identical guns to the smaller ship. That was tangent of your own creation, which you're now dishonestly trying to pretend was the subject all along in a desperate attempt to change the subject.

.....really I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your assumptions regarding weapons straights when monted on different size ships.

Hello, McFly? Bigger ship = bigger reactors = more power available = more power per gun. It's simple logic.

The Sov and the Prometheus both have type XII phasers, so did the Lokata. The Sov and the Defiant both have quantum torpedoes.

Well good for them. Care to explain what's stopping Starfleet slapping a Type XIII phaser on a battleship? Oh, yeah, nothing. The battleship would have ample power to work such a hypothetical weapon, while a smaller ship would not.

What great logic, I say the bigger ships with the same tech always win. Since the smaller ships wins they must have better tech.

Correct, that's simple fucking logic. Refute it or shut the hell up. I'm getting fed up with your "I refuse to accept your answer" BS. Either start debating properly or get lost.

The only problem is that you have not proven your stance and you have not provided proof that the Federation had a tech advantage over the Dominion.

Smaller UFP ships were capable of destroying larger Dominion ships. If they were of the same tech level, that would not have happened. The logical answer is that the Dominion ships were inferior to the Federation ships.
Get it yet? I could use smaller words if you'd like.

Wow.......I know the generator provides the power, what I'm saying is that the amount of power that generator puts out may not control the top power out put of the phasers. An example, if a type X phaser array max out put is 10GW and the generator powering it puts out 30GW the phaser will still only be able to put out 10GW.

Prove it.

Plug you computer into a power source more powerful then your outlet and see what happens. Just because you can generate more power does not mean your phasers can make use of it.

False analogy, and prove it.

I have give you many examples and you have shot passed them off based soley on assumptions that you have not provided any proof of.

Bullshit. You've yet to give any valid examples.

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

Show us one instance of a small warship beating a large warship of similar tech level and age.
If your stance is correct, you should have no problem doing that.

. Plus you are defending the original argument that that with the same tech and designed for war the larger ship will always win, but have not provided proof. Just assumptions that larger generator mean phasers of the same type can fire more powerful bursts and that shield straight is dependent on generator size. If you cannot prove those you cannot prove that a larger ship will always when over a smaller one when the tech and purpose of design are the same.

We have proven that. That you've refused to accept those answers does not refute that.

i keep scanning through this but don't have enough time to read properly (cognitive psychology work eats up my time) so sincere apologies to everyone.
What a few people keep forgetting or ignoring is that this debate is about different sized ships of the same technological and cultural background. and that when comparing vessels we take this into account and either do two dedicated warships or two non-dedicated warships...or i'll start my irrepressible flaw of fanw*nking the 300m vs the 1200m kazon predator (clear violation as different tech, one dedicated,one seemingly hastily converted)...
If anyone watches 'trek footage rather than relying on cognitive distortions or schemas prone to suggestion to which we're especially prone to if its been a while since we saw the episode, been told something from someone we regard as authority etc.....then they'll find that the maneuvrability of vessels in the thread is grossly exaggerated and that the only vessel to demonstrate a marked tactical advantage at a single point in a battle via sufficient maneuvrability to compensate for its inferior weapons was the breen vessel evading the defiant in 'what you leave behind', but even this example is moot, as both ships are not from the same technological base.
But the maneuvrability of the intrepid or defiant class has been much embellished here.

Dare I ask why?

You're trying to use logic on someone who if you've ever been on DITL doesn't have any. Round and round you go, where it stops no body knows. The whole thing is just a running joke. Retards playing "we da smart peoples wit brains" game. It's just funny to me.

Granitehewer wrote...

It's not even as if they can pretend... they're just ignoring facts because they don't like it. I don't like taxes but I don't see ignoring them helping at all. But, its threads like these which remind me why I've always hated people.