Yes, it says something is dangerous for individuals. This comes from the EU, the same ensemble which of course features gallons of one shot personnal shields, notably during the Kotor era. Go figure. Seems like some tech can actually be lost to some degree.GStone wrote:Here's a serious, off topic question. If droidekas have personal shields, why wouldn't clonetroopers? Was there something about there being dangerous levels of energy output for the wearer? I can't remember. Even if it was the size of a thin backpack, if I was a clonetrooper, I'd want one.2046 wrote:In any case, there are few battles in history where your armchair quarterbacking would not find fault . . . and I daresay you'd find more fault in Star Wars battles than in this case, were you to care to look with the same standards.
Starfleet military vs. RL military
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Such as this one showing multiple people being protected from rain. 5 on one level and a 6th on a bridge above.
http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... ainjj5.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... ainjj5.jpg
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:04 am
The fact that its utterly retarded and wouldn't even remotely work. It would be in the ST side's best interest if you just shut up.And with all phasers set to wide beam, what makes you think the jemmies wouldn't throw a bunch of their soldiers in the path of the wide beams, as living shields for other soldiers? And then, grab their bodies and hold them up to block more kill shots and tossing them at the starfleet people once they got near?
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:29 am
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am
Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
I admit to being guilty of a red herring fallacy myself. While the topic of the effectiveness of conventional-type land mines with Trek technology would be interesting to debate, it has nothing to do with this current topic.l33telboi wrote:snip mines
I simply say that the Jem'hadar subspace minefield was not very effective, as both the minefield and Jem'hadar attacks caused less than one casualty a day.
And yet whether or not the people at SDN consider that example valid or not has nothing to do with this topic. There is no mention of anything related to Star Wars in the OP. Sorry, still a red herring.No, it has a little something to do with consistancy. It has to do with not performing double-standards, just like you are doing right now. You see, the people you are mee-tooting for are quick to consider the above example as oh so very valid, but widebeam, for some reason, isn't.
Same rules for both sides. Sucks, doesn't it?
If it's been shown possible, then it is possible.
The fact is that as consequences stated, there are hurdles towards widebeams that can be explained with SoD-power consumption, the need to gauge the exact beam spread, and so on.
A similar type of example can be found with modern forces and nerve gas-the need to put on NBC gear, large-scale ethicial concerns, and so on.
If you continue to claim the use of widebeam despite it not being used so many times when it would have been useful, I can do the same with nerve gas.
The simple fact is that widebeam hasn't been used in many situations when it would have been useful-AR-558 being the most telling example. So either there's a problem with it that keeps it from being used more, or Starfleet personnel are simply idiots in regards to that.
576 times as much energy or 576 times weaker is hardly a bit.Yes, the beam becomes a bit weaker. And yet, it's capable of both killing and stunning people on said setting. Which is more then enough, and I've also said this previously. Odd that you didn't respond to that particular point.
Yes, stun is enough to incapacitate a soldier. However, it is not enough to destroy whatever substantial cover he may be behind-which there is plenty of in a jungle.
Did you miss that soldiers use cover whenever possible?Did you miss the part where I said that stun is enough.
No, I'm simply pointing out physics.In other words, you're assuming the people firing the things are going to fire it on a too-wide setting to be effective at the ranges they're targeting stuff? Does that mean I can assume the marines, if replacing the UFP, will accidentally all shoot themselves in the knee 0.003 seconds after they touch down?
...Talk about jinxing the scenario in your favor.
Nitpicking. Note that consequences said in his analysis that having the beam spread out over ten feet would make it use 576 times as much energy.Also, you lack any sort of quantification for this. You're simply saying 'They're weaker! They can't be used at long ranges!' and then hoping that's enough. Problem is, you don't know how long a range 'long' is. It's true that the beam probably loses its effectiveness somewhere along the line, but where? What's 'long' range?
In fact, do you find anything wrong about consequences' analysis?
If the victim is behind physical cover, then it is telling. It certainly is telling to the phaser's power supply.You also don't seem to realize that the 'stun' setting is probably a completly different method of firing the weapon (much like the disintergrate method) then normally. This means that J/m^2 might not be as telling anymore, because I doubt it's the raw energy stunning the victim.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:29 am
Not surprising given the sheer amount of time. There's been plenty of lost technology in Earth's timeline. Look at all that was lost when Rome fell and plunged the world into the Dark Ages.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Yes, it says something is dangerous for individuals. This comes from the EU, the same ensemble which of course features gallons of one shot personnal shields, notably during the Kotor era. Go figure. Seems like some tech can actually be lost to some degree.
Its perfectly reasonable to think that there exists a lot of lost tech in SW.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Really? And question of if there's a setting of kill that's also a wide beam, which is something many on your side have refused to acknowledge in the past is still supposed to be wishful thinking? Well, ANY setting that vaporizes solid material with a conical or wide beam is a kill setting, such as DS9-Rapture and VOY-Cathexis, where a possessed Tuvok, who has been using his Starfleet knowledge to do normal ship stuff, as well as the Vulcan nerve pinch, threatens the bridge crew with a statement of his phaser being set to kill and 'on wide beam dispersal'.Thanatos wrote:The fact that its utterly retarded and wouldn't even remotely work. It would be in the ST side's best interest if you just shut up.And with all phasers set to wide beam, what makes you think the jemmies wouldn't throw a bunch of their soldiers in the path of the wide beams, as living shields for other soldiers? And then, grab their bodies and hold them up to block more kill shots and tossing them at the starfleet people once they got near?
Now, let's pay attention to what was going on. The Starfleet people had their phasers set to kill, but were the bodies disintegrating? No. Visually from a distance, you can see blue white explosions coming off them, but the bodies fell and staid solid. And how far away from the bottle neck were the Starfleet people? Was it 200 yards? No. Was it 100 yards? No. Even looking at the images at Trekcore, you can see that they were less than 50 yards away. Probably around 30-35.
So, a body held up in front of them could provide a decent enough amount of protection against a wide beam kill shot that at most left scortch marks on the body. Why is that? Because it would only be in contact with the beam for a very brief amount of time. Even if you assumed that some of the phaser energy punched through the bodies, the impact made onto those carrying them would be minimal.
This is the kind of understanding about the event that helps with whether one should say something is a bad idea.
Now, is there anything else you would like to discuss?
- l33telboi
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 910
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
- Location: Finland
Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
Neither are they very effective as pens. But that's probably because they're not meant to be used as pens.Opecoiler wrote:I simply say that the Jem'hadar subspace minefield was not very effective, as both the minefield and Jem'hadar attacks caused less than one casualty a day.
Seeing how the mines work, they are probably terror weapons, meant to degrade morale. Because that is what they seem to do. They're not area denial weapons, because they clearly don't do that.
And as terror weapons, they work. How do you think you'd feel if you knew you're walking around in a place where there are invisible bombs that can suddely materialize and blow you to bits? How do you think you'll feel after you've been sitting in such a field for a weak, seeing your friends blow up, and knowing that you might be next?
Nope, the rules that should be set in place when debating stuff like this are very much a part of this thread, and other threads as well. You use the same method of analysis and quantification for both sides.And yet whether or not the people at SDN consider that example valid or not has nothing to do with this topic. There is no mention of anything related to Star Wars in the OP. Sorry, still a red herring.
You can try to cover up the double-standard you're performing by crying red herring over and over again, but it's still very much there.
What? That's most certainly not something you can argue, unless you want to have your cake and eat it too.The fact is that as consequences stated, there are hurdles towards widebeams that can be explained with SoD-power consumption
Let me explain. First you argue that the range will be limited because the energy that was in the narrow beam is now spread over a much wider area. Then you also argue that the weapon draws more energy this way. Well, I'm afraid those two things are mutually exclusive. If you pump more energy into the widebeam setting, then you're also going to have more energy at the targeted area, not the same energy you normally get in a phaser blast.
Either you get a phaser on widebeam that is as effective as normal phasers, but eat a lot more power, or you get a phaser that is less effective, but eats as much power as a normal beam.
This certainly doesn't seem to be a big problem or a complicated procedure, if we go by what's seen in the show.the need to gauge the exact beam spread, and so on.
You're comparing wide-beam setting, something that can be safely set to stun people, to nervegas? Touché.A similar type of example can be found with modern forces and nerve gas-the need to put on NBC gear, large-scale ethicial concerns, and so on.
Yeah, nervegas has quite a few ethical concerns. But a non-lethal weapon? Not so much. And I can't seem to recall them putting on NBC gear everytime they fire the thing. I can't even find a reason for why that would be remotely logical.
Why not just compare widebeam setting to nukes while you're at it? Or perhaps you'd like to skip right to comparing it to child-molesters with AIDS?If you continue to claim the use of widebeam despite it not being used so many times when it would have been useful, I can do the same with nerve gas.
But no, you can't invent arbitrary reasons (especially not when they're as rediculous as the one you just made) and then think they're valid counters.
Widebeam makes the beam flat and wide, it won't have a larger circular diameter. So the phaser on widebeam doesn't go from tiny circle to big circle, as is assumed in the figures you're referring to. It goes from tiny circle to a beam that is wider, but equal in height as the original beam. As such the area affected is smaller then what that figure assumes.576 times as much energy or 576 times weaker is hardly a bit.
If I noticed this after quickly glancing at it, you'd think that someone that actually uses this figure in a debate, and has undoubteldy checked the figure, would also have noticed. No?
You're assuming they will always be perfectly behind cover when shot at? Please, I've seen so many people tell this to you on SB already that you should've gotten it by now - you don't jinx a scenario in your favor, by arbitrary assuming the side you want to win gets lucky and has all the odds in his favor. Like assuming that whenever someone is fired on, he's actually behind cover.Yes, stun is enough to incapacitate a soldier. However, it is not enough to destroy whatever substantial cover he may be behind-which there is plenty of in a jungle.
Besides, if they're behind cover, then I very much doubt that anything but a very hefty amount of energy will do any good. And you won't exactly be doing any better with a rifle if the person you're firing on is hiding behind a heap of rocks.
Yeah, I probably missed it because you only said that in this very post. I find it quite difficult to respond to things you're going to be saying in the future, see.Did you miss that soldiers use cover whenever possible?
But it's a good point, isn't it? Because in real war, soldiers always, with 100% success, use cover whenever they're fired on. As such, weapons fire from rifles have never yet wounded or killed so much as a single person. Right?
Realize that cover is no argument here, since it works just as well against modern weapons as it does against phasers.
And assuming the ones being fired on is somehow always behind cover when fired on, is as rediculous as assuming that rifles are completly inneffective for the very same reason.
Physics? Explain to me how physics say that we can assume UFP personel will somehow fire their phasers on a too-wide setting for what they wanted?No, I'm simply pointing out physics.
I don't even want to guess where someone asking another person to quantify and thus validify his argument is considered "Nitpicking".Nitpicking.
Honestly, I thought the problem would be as plain as day.In fact, do you find anything wrong about consequences' analysis?
Yes, let's assume that whoever they're shooting at is always perfectly concealed behind cover. That makes widebeam completly ineffective, doesn't it? But wait, that also makes modern rifles completly ineffective, because if someone is behind cover and you shoot at them, they won't die.If the victim is behind physical cover, then it is telling. It certainly is telling to the phaser's power supply.
I guess that fits in with what we know from real life, doesn't it. I mean we've yet to have a single person ever die from a gunshot wound. The people being fired on is always behind cover.
Brilliant.
Last edited by l33telboi on Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Praeothmin
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 3920
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
- Location: Quebec City
Except that in the case of the Romans, all it took was a few hundred years to gain back all that was lost, and then some.Kahless wrote:Not surprising given the sheer amount of time. There's been plenty of lost technology in Earth's timeline. Look at all that was lost when Rome fell and plunged the world into the Dark Ages.
Its perfectly reasonable to think that there exists a lot of lost tech in SW.
So I imagine that in a Galaxy spanning civilization, technology that was lost 4000 thousand years ago should have been re-invented a long time ago... :)
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
I do. First, he complains that wide beam usage is not being used enough in Trek, such as at AR-558, Heart of Glory. But, then, in the same post, he switches and explains reasons why it might not be used in those same incidents he's complaining about, such as needlessly wasteful energy expenditures, which is one of the reasons I gave earlier in the thread about the use of single stream phaser settings at AR-558.Opecoiler wrote:Nitpicking. Note that consequences said in his analysis that having the beam spread out over ten feet would make it use 576 times as much energy.
In fact, do you find anything wrong about consequences' analysis?
But, no. If others say it...fine. I say it and I get ridiculed. It's not unexpected, though.
The problem I have is that he's taking 2 opposing positions, which is impossible. Either he's for a wide beam setting used more often than has been seen in Trek or he's for the limited amount of usage.
Pick one and be done with it. None of this pussyfooting around shit.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:04 am
Yes, it would utterly fail under even the most optimistic circumstances. For your ridiculous plan to work, they would have to magically hold someone (who magically covers their legs) up exactly perpendicular to the shooter while running forward. There is no way this is even remotely possible. All you would have to do is blast their legs out from under them or shoot them off angle. And given how the time required to run your posited 50m, they'll have plenty of time to waste the idiots attempting your plain ridiculous scheme.GStone wrote:Really?
Its about the stupidest idea I have ever heard.
My side? I'm not on anyone's side here. Hell, you're practically on the SW side given how much you're hurting your own side.on your side
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:06 pm
- Contact:
You think that's a GOOD idea?Kahless wrote:That's a terribly rude attitude to take. Why should he have to shut up when there is nothing wrong with his idea? Frankly, I think its a perfectly reasonable tactic to take.Thanatos wrote: It would be in the ST side's best interest if you just shut up.
To sacrifice several of your people as living shields, then burden the rest with bodies that won't even be effective defenses, since we know perfectly well that phasers CAN disintegrate a human body? And then try to carry the bodies close enough to the enemy to use them as thrown weapons, taking fire all the way?
Call it rude if you want, but that is an IDIOTIC tactic; there's just no other way to describe it. Running screaming through a choke point with swords against an enemy shooting beam weapons was smarter, and that was plenty stupid.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
It is terribly rude, and you've made all of a handful of polite posts since your last warning. At most, a couple days of "good behavior" while active; clearly not the week mandated by the enforcement policy for me to reduce your warning level:Kahless wrote:That's a terribly rude attitude to take. Why should he have to shut up when there is nothing wrong with his idea? Frankly, I think its a perfectly reasonable tactic to take.Thanatos wrote: It would be in the ST side's best interest if you just shut up.
Accordingly, you are in the position of being the first to earn the one day temp ban. Given your normal activity levels, you should not find this a great inconvenience. You will be unbanned upon my next login after the day mark.One solid week of good behavior while active may earn you back a warning.
I would also like to take this opportunity to warn GStone that this:
Is rather on the rude side.None of this pussyfooting around shit.
-
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Undercover in Culture space
For a human to lift someone of average weight up and run, they don't need huge amount of muscle mass. They'd need a decent amount, but they don't need to bench press 450 lbs to do it. Jemmies are designed to be far stronger than humans and don't even feel fatigue like humans because they don't sleep. While they usually last only a few decades, to go that long without sleep and still act like you are in your prime is exceptional. This increased stamina translates into being able to use your muscles for longer periods of time. How long do you think it takes to sprint 30-35 yards? 3 hours?Thanatos wrote:Yes, it would utterly fail under even the most optimistic circumstances. For your ridiculous plan to work, they would have to magically hold someone (who magically covers their legs) up exactly perpendicular to the shooter while running forward.
The strain required to hold someone of average or above average weight isn't that out of the question given this level of stamina. And I was saying less than 50, more like 30-35. They also wouldn't be just walking slowly.
It isn't required to hold them up perfectly perpedicular. Do you think jemmies are stiff as a body and as straight when they die? They just need to be held up and down in front of the moving jemmies. Not sideways. Tell me you weren't thinking I was talking about holding the bodies sideways.
A 30-35 yard sprint is not that far, nor would it mean that with a wide beam, they bodies will suddenly increase in weight and become too heavy. We aren't talking about out of shape humans carrying other humans.
Yes, your side. The ones that are pro-wars of the more extreme perspective.My side? I'm not on anyone's side here. Hell, you're practically on the SW side given how much you're hurting your own side.
You think the Vorta or the Founders are that concerned with individual Jem'Hadar? You aren't watching the canon, if you are. The jemmies are nothing more than disposable soldiers. They even breed it into their genetic code and social conditioning. 'Victor is life', 'we are already'. They rammed a GCS when there was no need to, killing all the jemmies that were on board just to prove a point of how far they would go.Ted C wrote:You think that's a GOOD idea?
To sacrifice several of your people as living shields, then burden the rest with bodies
A very obvious switching of the argument. The idea is that supposedly there isn't a wide beam setting that can disintegrate or do damage to the surrounding enviornment. So, what's left? Killing with external burn marks on the body. Keeping the power low, so that you don't drain the power cell too quickly. That has been proposed by your side, as well as mentioning a decreased effectiveness, though calling a circular area 'wide beam' is wrong.that won't even be effective defenses, since we know perfectly well that phasers CAN disintegrate a human body?
If that is the physical result after phaser hits on wide spread, you aren't gonna be disintegrating anything. Not even the bodies that are being used to block the phaser blasts (which again...are not disintegrating anything) will vanish.
The bodies would continue to get burnt more and more and I said that even if some made it past, it would be small because the brunt of the effects are being taken by the 'body shields'. It should be obvious that when they got close to the starfleet soldiers, they would then toss them, not as if they were throwing them the entire distance from the bottle neck.And then try to carry the bodies close enough to the enemy to use them as thrown weapons, taking fire all the way?
And I need to inform you that if you are gonna call something stupid, you actually need to understand what is being said. You have cleary demonstrated that you didn't.Call it rude if you want, but that is an IDIOTIC tactic; there's just no other way to describe it. Running screaming through a choke point with swords against an enemy shooting beam weapons was smarter, and that was plenty stupid.
Therefore, your accusation of a 'stupid tactic' is invalid.