Topic: TNG Redemption Error??? (Read 8046 times)

FutureTem · « **Reply #40 on:** July 27, 2003, 09:19:29 am »

@ Adam: No problem, its a pleasure to help.

Now, this brings (probably again) an idea up: we saw Data using Photons to illuminate cloaked Romulans back in TNG, and recently we watched Picard firing both Phasers and Torpedoes to track and hit the Scimitar during that big fight in Nemesis.

I wonder why a similar option has not been made available for SFC 3. Low-power phaser sweeps - even if only being effective at close to mid range - might greatly raise the surviving chances against a lurking Romulan. Track 'em with phasers, hit 'em with Torpedoes and any phaser that is ready / has not been used up for the sweep.
And before some cloak lovers now start complaining, how about giving the "phaser sweep" option a similar reload time as if the phaser was fired normally. And if a cloaked ship gets hit by a phaser sweep, it becomes visible, but for a shorter time than it would be uncovered when hit by a normal phaser or a torpedo.

I know that this won't be implemented, but hey, for some strange reason I 1.) believe in wonders and 2.) I still keep waiting for the real full patch for SFC 3 (which hopefully might include some new "official" ships as a thanks to the fans for the LOOOONG waiting time).
Although nr. 2 seems to be really wishful thinking compared to my idea stated above :-( ......

- Future

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 27, 2003, 01:23:29 pm »

Actually, no.

It's not strictly true in cannon that a cloaked ship has no shields. A ship currently activating or de-activating cloak has no shields (in a lot of episodes), but originally only the B'rel class from Generations had that problem, as was specifically pointed out by Worf.

Looking to nemesis, remember that a phaser blast to unshielded hull any other time we've seen it in star trek has led to massive damage. The Scimitar, however, sustained many hits. This would lead me to believe that Romulans likely have form-fitting shields to reduce their sensor profile under cloak.

Remember back to Picard's first encounter with the Borg. He was worried about firing a photon torpedo at close range, as the detonation would likely take out his unshielded Galaxy class.

In short: Star Trek weapons obliterate hull, but not shields.

Given this, it seems inherently unlikely that any navy would battle using cloak if they weren't shielded. In SFC3, shields don;t come up as a balance issue. If one shot to the hull did in a ship, then they probably WOULD be shielded.

Also, remember that a ship without at least navigational shields cannot move or go to warp. (The voyager episode wherein they rescued the borg kids from the damaged cube). This means that if shields could not be raised while under cloak, cloaked ships could not move or go to warp. This ALSO seems inherently unlikely.

So, in short, SFC Cloak no shields, show cloak shields.

Alexander

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 27, 2003, 04:15:43 pm »

See, once I had all down pack, no, Im confused as hell, lol lol, every episode I have seen for the exception of Generation, It seemed that any cloaked ship had some type of shield, lol even in redemption when Gowrons Vorcha was being attacked and Worf's brother came to the rescue the Brel Fleeing was in the process of cloaking but even as it disappeared the disruptor were still hitting the ships shields, now Im confused, are there shields when cloaked, or when you are cloaked is it hitting the hull, if so the ship in question shouldnt be theyre anymore, if Picard and any other capt, is scared sh*& that a torpedos can cause alot of damage up close without no shields why is it that there are times that weapons hit cloaked vessel and they dont get destroyed, how about that DS9 episode where Sisko takes the Defiant for the first time into the Gamma Quadrant, he was cloaked and messed up, system were crashing and everything was being blown up, I dont know Im rambling on, im lost, the only thing I want to know is when cloaked are there shields or not, personally cloaking and taking a huge risk like that is stupid, remember TMP Search for Spock 3 , but hey....?????

adam out

FutureTem · « **Reply #43 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:25:12 pm »

Lol, I should have expected a Romulan player to come up with something like that.

Ok, I just checked some technical info on Star Trek, and basically it is mentioned that a cloaking device uses so much energy that there is not enough power left for the weapons. Normally, while I was unable now to look this up online, it is known that a cloaked ship also has (except for the navigational deflector, which obviously needs only very little amounts of power) NO shields activated.
This is reinforced by the fact that when ships cloak or uncloak, they are unshielded. Now why should one lower his shields for this process if he actually HAS the power to keep shields up? If you would be right, it means the following:

- When cloaked, a ship has only power for cloak and shields, but none for weapons. When decloaking, the ship transfers the power used for the cloak to the weapons if needed.

If this would be true, why should the shields be lowered for cloaking/decloaking when the required power transfer happens only between weapons and cloak? Why should one give up his main defense, even if it only was for a few seconds, if he can keep power to the shields?
So, you can assume that shields also are inactive due to the huge power consumption of the cloaking device. Unfortunately, this specific logical point seemingly was never pointed out directly in the Star Trek series, which lead to episodes/films in which a cloaked ship gets hit directly, and others where cloaked ships have shields. But normally they are NOT supposed to have shields under cloak.

Besides, the B'Rel in Generations had no specific problem with it's cloak and shields, it was something with a plasma conduit (dont recall it exactly) which was linked to the cloaking device. And by emitting a certain signal, this "conduit" was lead to "believe" that it received the command to cloak, and so the shields went automatically OFFLINE.

Both the Bird of Prey in Star Trek 6 and the Scimitar in Nemesis were new experimental ships.

I can only guess that the gas trail that the B'Rel left behind should normally be cloaked too, or else Starfleet would only have needed to equip its Torpedoes with those sensors if it always would have been THAT easy to find a cloaked ship. So probably the Klingons found a way to reduce the cloak's power consumption far enough so that there is power for the torpedoes. This guess is reinforced by the fact that the torpedoes that were fired by that ship had a relatively long reloading delay.

The Scimitar was a revolutionary ship, and one can assume that it's ability to stay fully shielded, fully cloaked and ready to fire was made possible with a new extra strong power core, and some advances made in reducing the power needed by the ship's main systems. Also notice that apart from sensors, life support, engines, weapons, shields and other key systems, the Scimitar had in fact less basic systems to power than the Enterprise. The Scimitar was build purely as a warship, and therefore one can imagine that it doesn't have had as much replicators, holodecks or any other systems/sections like the Enterprise has them -> more power left for main systems. Also remember that the ship was a large Thalaron generator, and therefore it's wings mainly served that purpose. And since the Thalaron generator is only active when needed, it also does not require any power until activated.
Besides, if it really is that "easy" to create cloaked ships with active shields and weapons, one has to wonder why the Romulans didn't come up with a ship like that earlier, considering that they have by far the most experience regarding cloaking technology. I guess the Remans got to develop the Scimitar only by 1.) the help of some Romulans and 2.) the FACT that they were forced to work not only in the mines, but obviously in some military construction sites on Remus too, which probably gave them the needed knowledge and insights. Probably the Remans were able to think of one or two ideas the Romulans didn't think to be possible.

So, in short: except for some errors and special ships, up to now there has NEVER been a normal cloaked ship that was capable of powering more than it's cloak OR weapons and shields simultanously.

- Future

FutureTem · « **Reply #44 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:34:33 pm »

@ ROd O'Neal: Your example from "Relics" can simply be explained: the advance of technology over the years and the given situation.
On one hand, the Enterprise-D's transporters were about 80-90 years more advanced than the ones on the U.S.S. Jenolan. On the other hand, the Jenolan's shields and the ship itself were about to collapse when the Enterprise beamed Geordi and Scotty out.
For reference, see the Voyager episode "Future's End Part 2", where Henry Sterling gets beamed away (his henchman uses the 29th century technology from the time ship) from the Voyager although he is behind a force field and Voyager's shields are up.

More advanced tech -> transporters can beam through older and / or considerabley weakened shields.

- Future

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #45 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:50:15 pm »

Quote:

@ ROd O'Neal: Your example from "Relics" can simply be explained: the advance of technology over the years and the given situation.
On one hand, the Enterprise-D's transporters were about 80-90 years more advanced than the ones on the U.S.S. Jenolan. On the other hand, the Jenolan's shields and the ship itself were about to collapse when the Enterprise beamed Geordi and Scotty out.
For reference, see the Voyager episode "Future's End Part 2", where Henry Sterling gets beamed away (his henchman uses the 29th century technology from the time ship) from the Voyager although he is behind a force field and Voyager's shields are up.

More advanced tech -> transporters can beam through older and / or considerabley weakened shields.

- Future

The Ent-D doesn't have 29th century transporters. I think we all can accept it as fact that the Ent-D's transporters didn't work through shields without listing the episodes where it is actually stated. Face it, they cheated!!

FutureTem · « **Reply #46 on:** July 27, 2003, 11:00:22 pm »

Lol, come on, give some credit to about 80 years of technological improvements and last but not least, Starfleet's hard working engineers!

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2003, 12:30:28 am »

ok my conclusion, shields shouldnt be up while cloaked and they should be powered down while cloaking and stuff, just as they stated but because they are in control and they can do whatever they want they meaning the people behind the scenes, they can change there rules and not be expected to explain when some trekkie comes along at wonders how or why, they feel it so insignficant that they can get away with it, and they could and as we see did, there are bunches of technological bloopers especially with transporters as rod said, im sorwie im force to agree regardless 80 or 90 years different, the ent-d shields systems, according to Tasha yar, in the episode yesterdays enterprise, the shield systems werent different from the enterprise c all that was different is that it can take a much more pounding than the enterprise before the D, much of the technology was similar, i think they just didnt think of it, just like they didnt think of the shields / cloak thing, its to there convenience, whether the shields are up or down, if they want the ship to be destroyed instantly then poooooof that ship was cloaked and shields were down, and if not than nope the shields were up, defiant, romulan warbirds, klingons brel, all had theyre shields on while cloaking and decloaking and while being fired upon, when they shouldnt have but now, im like i dont care, lets not mention the episode where the defiant was sent back in time to kirks age and they were orbiting the station and managed to beam people on board while cloaked lol lol bull crapwhile cloaked, impossible,

adam out

FutureTem · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2003, 12:41:07 am »

Hm, well, if it helps, beaming while a ship is cloaked is normal and quite possible. And therefore another proof of the "no-shields-while-cloaked" fact.

Cleaven · « **Reply #50 on:** July 28, 2003, 04:04:19 am »

One order of self-consistent Star Trek for table nine.

FutureTem · « **Reply #52 on:** July 28, 2003, 10:56:16 am »

I want two of them, one with pointy ears and one with cybernetic implants, please! Oh, do you also have a quiet room where one can.... enjoy his order?

Captain Ron · « **Reply #54 on:** July 28, 2003, 11:33:36 am »

Handling it has always been his problem, getting someone else to handle it is the current situation.

Hey...
What was this thread about anyways Hijacking?

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 29, 2003, 08:23:55 pm »

Of course they can beam while cloaked.

Just because they CAN have shields up while cloaked doesn't mean that they HAVE to! They can be raised and lowered as usual.

Yes, in some parts it would seem that Cloaking lowers shield, in others it wouldn't. I would say that a ship must use a lot more energy to activate the cloak than to keep it running, therefore shields drop WHILE CLOAKING but come back up after cloak. There are too many instances of cloaked ships being fired upon.

If this wasn't true, then cloaking would be FAR too dangerous, as its been proven time and again that an unshielded ship is a dead ship. A brel with 2 disruptors took out an unshielded galaxy class. That galaxy fired meaningless volleys at it until they managed to get it to lower its shields, then 1 shot did it in.

In trek games, hull's have more inflated values because a player likes to survive a bit. We can't expect taldren to give cloaked ships shields, you may as well just remove anti-cloak altogether. However, we can't let games dictate cannon. I mean if you think about the shield:hull strength ratios, a shuttle could accidentally fly through a warbird and destroy it. There wouldn't be a point to it.

Alexander

Rod O'neal

Re: TNG Redemption Error???

Rod O'neal

Re: TNG Redemption Error???

Rod O'neal

Re: TNG Redemption Error???

Rod O'neal

Re: TNG Redemption Error???

Alidar Jarok

Re: TNG Redemption Error???

News: