Topic: Let's talk about WEAPONS...................MP style(be careful its a read)

[jayvt3]

Just so you know and for those who don't.  Picture yourself in a Starfleet Academy Auditorium.  The speaker is an officer of undetermined rank and bears a striking resemblence to Michael Palin. 'nuff said.

This is hopefully a start of a beautiful and hopefully bloodless debate, given the subject of discussion.
I will for the next few weeks we will be discussing the positive and negative attributes of various species primary weapons systems.  We will go in depth into the good, the bad, and the downright uselessness of these various weapons, beginning with the blindly optimistic era of the NX series Enterprise all the way to the somebody give me a hammer there's a fly on Riker's no Worf's no Picard's no Deanna's yes Deanna that intergalactic trollop who left me but will soon be back grovelling to me begging me to satify her in ways that Riker could never do...No no no Wesley yes Wesley's head!  Wesley with those doe like eyes, pouty lips and narrow hips...cough cough cough...Excuse me, TNG era.  
Also if you all are nice I might even have a guest "speaker" or two, or three, or maybe two and a half digested or partially disentegrated one depending on the species and weapons involved.
But I would ask of each of you who would be so kind as to grace this humble soul's discussions.  Tto abide by this one simple rule.
No flaming and to adhere to topic.   Um...Two simple rules.  No flaming, adhere to topic and maintain civility... Uh that's three rules isn't it?
Ok! Ok!  These are the rule of this topic!
1.  Adhere to the chosen topic.
2.  Maintain civility
3.  No flaming.
4.  All answers are to begin in question form.
5.  Ignore rule four.
6.  Have fun or be burnt at the stake or forced to watch all the old TNG episodes starring Wesley...Wesley...Wesley my precious.  Come to me my precious.  No one understands me like my precious.....

And now on to the first topic!
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
(drumrole)
Drumrole stops due to drummer has stroke.
THE AWESOME MOST DEVESTATING WEAPON IN PC GAMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An civilian tech representative, that bears a shocking resemblence to Terry Jones, stands up and says, "Hey wait a minute!  Isn't this is just for the Star Trek series?!?!" (gunshot,scream, body is carried off)

Since this is my topic refer to rule number 7.

And now the topic is; The most awesome, devestating weapon in pc gaming.

"By God man!  You just shot that poor bastard!" Says an Admiral who looks much like Graham Chapman. (another gunshot, another scream, another body carried off)

Another officer stands up.  The guy looks just like John Cleese!
Would you like to say something as well???
"Why yes.   I would just like to compliment you on your demonstration of superb pistol marksmanship.  Especially since the Admiral was running away and had his back to you. A most difficult target to aquire."
(clapping and some here-here's)
"But I do have one question, if I may be so bold."
But of course sir.  This is an open forum where all may speak freely and the open debate of ideas is heartily encouraged.
"This is the late 24th century why didn't you just use a phaser??"
(phaser whine, no scream, no body due to disintegration.)
end of skit.

Well enough of that now back to the matter at hand.
My vote to the most impressive weapon and it's effects goes to the Ion Cannon in the Command and Conquer game Renegade.
Why?  This thing is like the war-hammer of God. You set the designator and then all you can do is run and pray you get out of the blast radii.  When you think you're safe you can look back and literally see the heavens open and the clouds part.  Even then you're bound to loose half of your life due to the after-shock.  Makes conventional nukes look like a cheap whore at a shriner's convention.  But then the cool, almost surrealistic part happens.  It rains.  Like tears are shed from creation due to the wound it has just suffered.
A close second comes from a Japanese PC game I played based on the Star Blazers' series of the late seventies, early eighties. This was the Wave Motion Cannon of the Yamato.  If the Ion Cannon was the hammer then this puppy was the spear.  The initiation series of the cannon, with the energy matrix building looked like a hurricane made up of fire and lightning.  The relaese of energy was pure blinding light.  Then after...
Well you know the rest.

As for the ST series.  The first weapon topic for discussion is the PHOTON TORPEDO.

Here is my schpeel.  In Enterprise (ENT), the klingons were the first o have them as we discovered in the episode where the crew saves a damaged KLC trapped in the atmosphere of a gas giant.  I believe it was Malclom that said, "these are for photon torpedoes.  Whatever they are."  Forgive me if I quoted badly.
The theory behind the Phot is simple, x amount of anti-matter and x amount of matter are mixed nano-seconds before impact and stimulated by photons.  Sounds good but is it really worth it.  Now also if you adhere to the natural adaptation of a species to progress, then the Klingons' Phots are far superior in yield strength than FED phots.  But the FED phots would have better variability yields than the Klingons' single high yield.  This we saw in another ENT episode where the technology gained from the rescue of the KLC when the NX's missiles were replaced with "variable yield photon torpedoes". Again for give me if I quoted badly.
Oh and for the nit-pickers.  A missile by definition is a weapon with a guidance system.  Fired from surface, submersible or airborne platforms.  Examples of surface.  ICBM's and TOW's.  Examples of airborne.  Phoenix and Sidewinders.  Example of submersible.  Polaris and Poseidon.  To meet the qualification to be labeled as a torpedo.  It must travel from point of release to point of target UNDERWATER.  And must be able to ACTIVELY TRACK IT'S TARGET.
Since we don't live in fluidic space and the only time I've seen a phot track a target was in "The Undicovered Country".
Is a phot really a true torpedo???

So for now and seven days this is the topic.  Post your stuff and as always all responses are welcome and appreciated.

         

[Fury_of_a_Seraph]

Alrighty, ill bite

Yes a photon is a torpedo. In the undiscovered country, the reason why that was so special is not because it homed in on its target, but because it homed in on an ion trail (thats why its roving about, it was following the path of the BOP) the next line is Sulu ordering a lock on onto the BOP. this meant that the guidence systems were locked for XYZ coordinates.
So yes a photon really is a torpedo. However, i believe there are dumb-firing torpedoes.

[Thu11s]

Wasn't it in one of the SFB manuals (Cadets or Captains edition) that said summint like "the Photon is the only direct fire torpedo" someone may want to look that up, tis the day of bad 'quotes' me thinks!

'direct fire torpedo'

thats my piece, a whole pennies worth

Thu11s
 

[Rogue]

For what it is worth... the way they went on to explain what a photon torpedo was after TOS kind of ruined for me. From a TOS perspective I had invisioned a photon torpedo to be a technique to achieve an extremely high photon discharge somewhat like a pulse phaser. Therefor it was a direct fire weapon like a phaser.

If laser is an achronym for Light Amplified by Stimulated Emission of Radiation then a phaser is likely to mean a phased laser. I guess, anyway.

With the depiction that came later we find out that photon torps are a guided anti-matter missile. Greeeaat... wouldn't that make the Enterprise we all know and love a drone cruiser? So what is the distinction with a drone cruiser then? Wouldn't drones/missiles be a guided weapon with a warhead appropriate to the technology? Like a variable yield AM warhead, perhaps? But wait... that's just been shown to be a photon torp. It would be a more reasonable explaination for a proxy torp if torps were really guided missiles, I suppose.

Ah well, it doesn't pay to try to make too much sense of the technology of Star Trek. Much of it doesn't conform to our best understanding of physics. Think not? Try to make transporters look like a workable technology. Probably more in the way of fantasy than science.        

[Tus]

Quote:
Whatever, x amount of anti-matter and x amount of matter are mixed nano-seconds before impact and stimulated by photons.  

by that little tid bit you said then yes it would still be a torpedeo.  Because the torpedo did not go off on impact makes it less like a missle.  Real life torpedeos rarely strike their target, instead blow up directly beneath them to cause more damage.  the photon torpedeo as you described is basically set of by proximity (nano seconds before impact is not impact) not by concussion.  your basic missle is set off on a concussion or else your basic countermeasure wouldn't work

Tus

edit for grammar

[Magnum357]

I have always invisioned SFB Photons as Advanced "Mass Driver" (or Railgun) type weapon that fires a Projectile with Antimatter stored in it for short durations.  People are right that TOS never really explained how a Photon worked, but that doesn't mean TMP and TNG ruined the concept.  But I do think that SFB Photons do work differently then what Star Trek Photons work.

As I have stated before, I think of SFB Photons are fired through an advanced Railgun system that Fires a small projectile (proabably the size of a Basketball, not a huge man size Torpedo that we see in the show) that holds a small amount of Antimatter from the Antimatter storage system.  

As for the Torpedo in Star Trek 6, it would have been nice if this was a Drone/Missile as this would have made much better sense then a Photon in both SFB and Star Trek.

[SSCF_LeRoy]

I have also invisioned the photon torpedo as a railgun projectile. I also think that it is also self-guiding and self-motivating (meaning that it has its own on-board propulsion system which, in my opinion, burns furiously and puts off a lot of visible light accounting for the characteristic "star-like" apperance of a photon). Basically it's a guided bullet. Since it doesn't take its own sweet time (normally) to track down its target like an SFB/SFC drone or plasma torpedo does, there's a chance that it'll miss because of its high speed.  

[jayvt3]

Here are a few things I found out while waiting for the bus and just talking to bad smelling, insane, homeless people.
If you look closely at the phot firing sequence in ST:TMP you see what looks like a design for the popular "railgun" theory.
Also during the "Undiscovered Country", Mister Scott and Spock both go through an inventory of phots.  The total was, I think, 99.  Since Vulcans don't lie and Mr. Scott can make replicators out of rocks,  then the torp itself must be of substantial size and not the anti-matter basketball it could be.  I was informed that it is common naval tradition (just like lashings, forced sodomy and mutiny) to give the name of torpedo to any weapon used by any "ship of the line" that uses the drive and detonation conepts discussed here.  I then found out that the name "photon torpedo" was another thing that ole stinky Gene, may he rot in eternal damnation, Roddenberry wanted and got.
My first point for this is if a full sized FCA carries only 99 torps should they not have a finite number in game as the missiles?
My second is the railgun concept is quite feasible and in use today.  Ingots of aluminium the size of half a roll of pennies can be accellerated(did I spell that right??) to nearly 70% the speed of light.  Now I don't know about any of you all but I gots no "S" on my chest and even if I did I would think that getting hit by a piece of metal travelling that quick would hurt like hell.  Especially if it got me in the family jewels.  So why don't we have something like it or better in the 24th century???

So we're off to good start here folks.
Should I continue or call it quits?
If you all want more.  
Next week we will discuss>>.Who in the hell designed the fire control systems for the Enterprise-D?!?!!??!!?!? or Why couldn't Worf using a faster than light weapon on a faster than light ship shoot down a sub-light target.
Maybe it was that last glass of prune juice.  

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Quote:
My first point for this is if a full sized FCA carries only 99 torps should they not have a finite number in game as the missiles?

Yes. Other SFB/SFC weapons that realistically oughta have a reload limit would be the hellbore ('cuz it's a projectile too), and plasma torpedoes (there's gotta be a device at the center of the ball of plasma that contains the guidance system and generates a containment field around the plasma).  

[Magnum357]

Yes, that is why I envisioned SFB Photons, Plasma Torpedoes, and Hellbores as much smaller Containers then what we see in the Star Trek shows where they are larger then a humaniod.  This would exlain a lot of things if you think about it.  A Projectile roughly the size of a Basketball would hold a very limited amount of Antimatter in it which is why it only generates 8 points of damage when it hits it target.  Also, I would have too imagine that a Projectile filled with a small amount of Antimatter would be much easier too handle then a Pojectile the size of a small boat.  And this would explain why in SFB why their is not a limited amount of Casings in the game system too record since you could hold at least a hundred of them on a ship, which would be much more then you could ever possibly fire in a single senario.  Same concept goes with Plasmas and Hellbores.  I agree with SSCF_LeRoy that the Photon/Hellbore Launchers are just advanced forms of Railguns.  Why the Projectiles sometimes miss is because they travel at such high velocities (50-75% of the speed of light possibly) that a slight miss calculation could still miss the target.  The projectiles might have a simple fire control and guidence system, but I would have too think its fairly limited.  The weapon would mostly reley on Proximity detection too hit the target then relly on pin-point hitting.  Plasma might be slightly different then Photons/Hellbores sine their mechanics are seeking the target.  Plasma torpedoes are proabably similar designed (about the same size of a Basketball) but have a tiny Impulse engine too help propel, but don't have a guidence system.  I have always figured that Plasma's need the support for guidence from their Lauching ship which sends a subatomic (tachyons perhaps?) signal too the Torpedo on flight too make course corrections, kinda like a Wire Guided missle that our military uses so often.  This could explian why the SFB Plasma ships have too have the plasma in their firing arcs.

Drones/Missiles are different since they have their own Guidence and Propulsion system.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Okay.  My take on the Photon:

Contrary to whatever Gene envisioned the photon torpedo to have been, post-TMP it has been represented a lot like a naval torpedo.

Your average Photon has a guidance / sensor suite on the nose, the payload with magnetic field generator up front, and fuel / miniture warp drive on the tail.  When the photon gets within X range of the target (programmed at launch, allowing the normal / proximity settings), it detonates.

Since matter/anti-matter reactions are based on the E=MC^2 equation, and 8 damage points are enough to shred 2/3rds of a Connie's primary hull (one photon knocks out most of the SFB "non-essential" hull hits), you would need a significant amount of anti-matter.  Especially since later-model antimatter is an anti-hydrogen slush.

The warp drive allows high-speed travel, fast enough to quickly overtake a ship travelling faster than warp 3.  It is probably also optimized strictly for this high-speed travel, and a side effect of this warp field is the "star glow" we see.  Different technologies explain why Photons are white / red / blue / cyan / magenta / etc.