www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:And the Scimitar was more like a dreadnought then a battleship

1) Dreadnoughts are a type of battleship you idiot.

2) The sheer number of weapons (27 torp launchers, 52 disruptor banks) suggests a philosophy of quantity over quality - the antithesis of the Dreadnought concept.

Dreadnoughts were basically fitted with as many big guns as they could fit on a ship, which is what the Scimitar is. Also Dreadnoughts are often considered a different type then battleships.

Rochey wrote:On another note, it appears that 60CM Ablative has won this round.

*Starts dancing around*

This is going to be so great! Can I pick the weapons?!

Deepcrush wrote:

Rochey wrote:On another note, it appears that 60CM Ablative has won this round.

*Starts dancing around*

This is going to be so great! Can I pick the weapons?!

If we let you pick the weapons the ship will be a slug

Where is your faith in me? Don't you think that I understand the balance of weapons vs diplomatic ability?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Dreadnoughts were basically fitted with as many big guns as they could fit on a ship, which is what the Scimitar is.

Wrong - Dreadnoughts are based on the "all big gun" concept, with an homogenous main battery of a relatively small number of heavy guns, rather than a mix of various types of weapons tailored to the various targets they're likely to encounter. Any other weapons carried are of strictly secondary importance. The sheer number of weapons the Scimitar carries, and the fact that it mixes torpedoes and disruptors, precludes it from being a dreadnought.

Also Dreadnoughts are often considered a different type then battleships.

No, they're not. Dreadnoughts are defined as a specific type of battleship, not a type of warship distinct from battleships. Any source that claims otherwise is factually incorrect.

Deepcrush wrote:

Where is your faith in me? Don't you think that I understand the balance of weapons vs diplomatic ability?

If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons

ChakatBlackstar wrote:If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons

There are some problems that cannot be solved by purely non-violent means. There are no problems that cannot be solved by purely violent means.

If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons

Speak softly and carry a big gun... I don't see anything wrong with that.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons

There are some problems that cannot be solved by purely non-violent means. There are no problems that cannot be solved by purely violent means.

There's a differnce between using weapons and using violence mind you. Would you consider the tractor beams or transporters to be weapons?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:There's a differnce between using weapons and using violence mind you. Would you consider the tractor beams or transporters to be weapons?

I'd consider them dual-use. They're not specifically designed as weapons, but they can be used as such on occassion.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:There's a differnce between using weapons and using violence mind you. Would you consider the tractor beams or transporters to be weapons?

I'd consider them dual-use. They're not specifically designed as weapons, but they can be used as such on occassion.

Exactly. And an enemy wouldn't be too wary of an 'unarmed' vessel. In fact that now that I think about it a tractor beam could be used for a corbonite manoeuvre-like effect. At least against torpedoes. And we've seen tractor beams reduce the accuracy of weapons by up to 50%.

Something else that effects enemy accuracy...



What, tell me you thinking about it?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Exactly. And an enemy wouldn't be too wary of an 'unarmed' vessel.

It wouldn't need to be - transporters are useless against a shielded ship, and unless there's a significant imbalance in the power of the ships involved tractor beams are too.

a tractor beam could be used for a corbonite manoeuvre-like effect.

Bluffing is an extremely bad tactic to use as routinely - it's a tactic of desperation.

I note that you've completely abandoned your previous position that "If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons".

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Exactly. And an enemy wouldn't be too wary of an 'unarmed' vessel.

It wouldn't need to be - transporters are useless against a shielded ship, and unless there's a significant imbalance in the power of the ships involved tractor beams are too.

I note that you've completely abandoned your previous position that "If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons".

They aren't weapons. Neither is a stapler, band-aid, or a frisbee yet I could disable my opponent with any one of those without lethal consequences or permanent injury. And why would someone raise sheilds against an unarmed vessel?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:They aren't weapons.

An weapon is anything designed, modified, or carried with the intention of using it to inflict damage or injury. If you intend to use transporters and tractor beams as weapons then they are weapons. Their unorthodox nature would give you an advantage in the first couple of encounters, but after that they'd be useless.

I still note that you've completely abandoned your previous position that "If you're diplomatic enough you don't need weapons".