|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jan 19, 2019 16:47:58 GMT -7
So, there is something that has always bothered me about missile weapon systems in this game. Specifically this stems from depictions of Federation photon torpedoes.
In the game Federation photon torpedoes are divided into different systems of different capabilities. FP-1 through FP-7. The photon torpedo launcher installed on a ship determines how much damage the torpedoes inflict, how far they can fire, and how likely they are to hit. This suggests that each torpedo launcher uses torpedoes that are specific to it, and not compatible with other systems.
However, in the show every torpedo we ever see uses the same standard casing. This is true from the ENT era all the way through the end of TNG/DS9/VOY. This suggests that all torpedos should be able to fire from all launchers and that the damage, range, and accuracy of a torpedo would be determined by the torpedo itself, not the launcher. The only things the launcher itself would affect would be power to arm and rate of fire.
It seems reasonable, then, that a ships missile damage would be limited by the ammunition loaded, and not by the missile system installed. This is further supported by canon in situation where we see ships using upgraded torpedos (quantum torpedoes, transphasic torpedoes, etc) without having to modify their launchers at all.
Of course, if this is how it works for the Federation I see no reason you couldn't assume it would be the same for the Klingons, Romulans, and other powers in the galaxy.
I realize that this would cause significant balance issues for the game as published, but has this issue ever occured to anyone else? Am I the only person bothered by this?
|
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Jan 19, 2019 21:23:04 GMT -7
My only crit with Trek Missle type wepons is lack of Seeker ones cept in Star Trek VI and Lack of Cluster munitions
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jan 19, 2019 21:35:46 GMT -7
My only crit with Trek Missle type wepons is lack of Seeker ones cept in Star Trek VI and Lack of Cluster munitions During the Romulan War, I believe the Star Navy had a weapon that worked like a cluster missile when fired at ships. We use a house rule where it delivers its power like a plasma weapon, but it can only be set for a fixed damage that is spread out over a maximum range with out dissipating. it spreads damage over systems |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 21, 2019 6:24:34 GMT -7
Personally, I think that that photon torpedoes are pretty much standardized in cannon material. I think that when a Federation ship fires a torpedo, it is the same type as the next Federation ship has. However, FASA introduced a variety of torpedo weapons for the races for just that...variety. I am OK with that. If we wanted to reconcile the uniformity of torpedo casings with FASA's diversity, we could explain it by software and firmware variations and compatibility with other weapons/computer systems fitted to a ship.
If anything, I think that FASA made their torpedoes too good. Starship combat in this universe closely emulates WWI ship-to-ship combat. Torpedoes are close ranged, slow and inaccurate weapons that are devastating when they hit. If I were to change any rules regarding torpedoes, it would be to use less complimentary firing charts for them - forcing the ships to get very close to one another to use them effectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 23, 2019 9:13:05 GMT -7
This is a good point. Maybe they were looking at navy ships where you have different types of missiles for the same purpose that function in different ways (harpoon vs tomahawk).
The problem with that vs game is they have different launchers.
Yet every modern navy ship has the best weapon the navy can equip (vertical launch systems).
You could change the torpedo by year/era but then everything that sorties with an enterprise class should have an FP-4 warhead loaded.
I see the dilemma.
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Jan 23, 2019 13:22:18 GMT -7
Even for the same type of uses, the US Navy has different missiles that can't be interchanged. Sea Sparrow went from a 8" design to a 10" design plus there are a number of Standard variations (some even having different sizes) plus at the time FASA was writing, the US Navy still had the survivors of the old T-3 designs (Talos, Terrier, and Tartar) though those were being fast retired. Most of the anti-air missiles had an optional anti-ship role plus there was the dedicated Harpoon. That is a lot of missile types.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jan 23, 2019 15:11:09 GMT -7
I understand that it is possible to have different types of non-interchangeable ammunition for weapon systems. What I am saying is that we have canon evidence that this is not the case in the Federation.
In the second season of Enterprise, Starfleet upgraded the Enterprise's missile weapon from spacial torpedoes which would not be compatible with photon torpedo launchers to photonic torpedoes. These photonic torpedoes appear to be contained within a standard torpedo casing identical in dimensions to every torpedo ever shown through the end of the TNG/DS9/VOY era. Of course this doesn't mean that there couldn't be other weapon systems that we just never see, but it is strong evidence that any Federation starship with a torpedo tube intended to launch torpedoes in a standard torpedo casing should be able to fire any torpedo in a standard casing. For example, If you pulled a NX class with a photonic torpedo launcher out of mothballs it should be able to shoot a quantum torpedo you pulled from the magazine of a Sovereign class starship. No upgrade needed. Put the torpedo in the tube and let it fly!
I understand that when this game was originally published there was no TNG. The only torpedo casings we had seen were those on the Enterprise in Star Trek II. When published there was nothing that contradicted the idea of unique torpedoes for each weapon system. However by the time I started playing this game we had seen the same casings into TNG and then into DS9 and VOY.
From the first moment I played this game I was aware that the Federation had been using standardized torpedoes for over 100 years. The first thing I wondered was, "Why can't all the ships just load up with FP-4 torps?" It always bugged me. I was just wondering if anyone else ever wondered the same
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 23, 2019 17:33:33 GMT -7
Unless there's A technobabble answer related to the length of the tube.
For example the reliant torpedo room may be much smaller than the enterprise, enterprise had a long gangway leading up to the tube launcher...
So if FP-4 requires a longer tube for a higher launch velocity per torpedo type. That serves to explain the discrepancy.
We could finagle a reason that doesn't break the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jan 23, 2019 17:46:06 GMT -7
I don't care about breaking the game. I'm not even suggesting a change should be made. I was just making conversation about a disconnect I see between the game and the show.
The tube length thing doesn't really square it for me. The propulsion for a torpedo would be part of the torpedo, not part of the tube. A torpedo tube is essentially just an airlock that lets the torpedo out of the ship. Later ships like the Galaxy probably have a long tube to allow multiple torpedoes to be loaded at once to allow for the spreads we see in the show, but that wouldn't mean you couldn't fire one of those torpedoes from a shorter tube.
Also, the Miranda and the Connie both have FP-4 launchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Jan 23, 2019 18:07:05 GMT -7
Looking at the Wiki for Quantum Torpedoes, it seems those require a major overhaul/upgrade to be installed in a ship. (According to dialogue.) Therefore, all the problems are best explained by a production department forced to reuse the same torpedo props.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 23, 2019 18:30:02 GMT -7
"I don't care about breaking the game. I'm not even suggesting a change should be made. I was just making conversation about a disconnect I see between the game and the show."
So we're on the same page then. I was just running through what it would look like if these torpedoes were based on what was available each era if it was a standard launcher configuration.
As you have described it I don't think there's a way to reconcile the game to the show.
Maybe it's related to the warp drive, it torpedoes are casings that are loaded with antimatter from the drive then you'd have a reason why different ships had such different yields and power requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 24, 2019 6:00:56 GMT -7
For example, If you pulled a NX class with a photonic torpedo launcher out of mothballs it should be able to shoot a quantum torpedo you pulled from the magazine of a Sovereign class starship. No upgrade needed. Put the torpedo in the tube and let it fly! It isn't even that simple today. When weapons get upgraded on a ship, there are necessary firmware and software upgrades, testing and integration issues to overcome. I don't see it being any simpler in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jan 24, 2019 17:28:32 GMT -7
For example, If you pulled a NX class with a photonic torpedo launcher out of mothballs it should be able to shoot a quantum torpedo you pulled from the magazine of a Sovereign class starship. No upgrade needed. Put the torpedo in the tube and let it fly! It isn't even that simple today. When weapons get upgraded on a ship, there are necessary firmware and software upgrades, testing and integration issues to overcome. I don't see it being any simpler in the future. Could it be that each torpedo system has different capabilities on how it draws antimatter from the antimatter reserves to load the warhead (a limit to how much antimatter it can load in a standard loading time), and how far it can track the torpedo to maximum range. That 'sort' of works of you look at the Federation torpedo table in the Construction Manual. As damage comes down from FP-1 to FP-3, each system is lighter and had less SS requirement than the previous system, and has a shorter range. Each figure then jumps up for the FP-4, and comes down again for the FP-5 to FP-7. It seems to work for the other empires torpedo systems as well, not counting plasma weapons. So if you think of each weapon model as an integrated system, the only standard component is the torpedo casing. Did that make any sense to anyone?  |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jan 24, 2019 22:55:37 GMT -7
trynda I agree, that's along the lines of what I was going for. Maybe antimatter is so unstable they make warheads on the fly, and the only thing the ship is "shooting" is the casing.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jan 25, 2019 5:54:45 GMT -7
Could it be that each torpedo system has different capabilities on how it draws antimatter from the antimatter reserves to load the warhead (a limit to how much antimatter it can load in a standard loading time).. This is possible in TOS and TMP, but by TNG it was possible to set the yield of the torpedo before it was fired (in Redemption II, Data ordered that the yield on the Sutherland's torpedoes be set so low that they inflicted no damage on the Romulan Warbirds). Thinking a bit on the integration issue, it may be as easy as saying "Computer, please update the weapons console to accommodate the new Swing-line Red photon torpedoes". |
|
|
|
Post by macrossmartin on Feb 1, 2019 3:37:12 GMT -7
I think the presumption that the similarity of appearance of one component of a weapon system implies all evolutions of that system are essentially the same is the fundamental error here. To use a simple, modern comparison; The Royal Navy's WW1-era Mk IV 21" torpedo was about 20' long, weighed over 1.5 tons, cylindrical, blunt-nosed, with a warhead at the front and propeller and fins at the back. Come forward a hundred years, and we have the Spearfish Mod1 as the standard RN ship-killer. It too is about 20' long, weighs over 1.5 tons, cylindrical, blunt-nosed, and so on. So, we have two weapons that essentially look the same. But, as I'm sure you can guess, a torpedo from the Great War is a poor, distant ancestor of a modern weapon like Spearfish. The capabilities of Spearfish (multi-aspect homing, fibre-optic wire guidance, speed over 80 knots), are something Jellicoe and co. could only dream of in 1914. But the two torpedoes both still fire from (essentially) steel, pressurised tubes. Does this mean both weapons can deploy and fire from the same launch system? Hell no. Not even the remotest chance. There is zero compatibility between the two torpedoes' tubes, launch management, fuel requirements, electrical connections, maintenance needs, guidance, destructive potential, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, the fact that two weapons are visually similar does not mean they can fire from the same system. Also, (although this approaches the subject tangentially), consider this: It's much more than mere arms sales jargon to describe the complex machine that is a modern missile, gun, or other means of killing, as a weapon system. The part that does the actual killing is, in fact, merely one small part of that system. And as those systems become more and more capable, their sophistication and complexity increases massively. This is further complicated by the changing nature of warfare, and the politics that drive it. Witness the increase in emphasis placed on so-called 'precision munitions' since the Vietnam War; no longer is it politically viable for a democratically governed nation's airforce to drop tons of 'dumb' bombs, and flatten whole cities, inflicting massed casualties. The voting public can now witness the horrors their tax dollars buy, right there on their televisions. Appalled, we demand less footage of mutilated children, and more of precisely-targeted and cleanly killed bad guys. Take that political reality, and multiply its impact on military thinking a hundredfold, and I think we're able to imagine the pressure on Starfleet to make nicer, cleaner, less collaterally-damaging ways of blowing things up. Now, add to this weapon contractor's migraine by considering the Photon Torpedo itself. We can safely predict that delivering an antimatter warhead to a target over hundreds of thousands of kilometres, at multiples of the speed of light is a nightmarishly difficult technological task. One that requires a purpose-built weapon system for each specific weapon. On top of that, consider that not every starship can dedicate the same internal volume to a torpedo system. It stands to reason that the torpedo system in a heavy cruiser will be more capable than that which can be shoehorned into a corvette. The cruiser simply has more room for the four-door, V8-powered supersize edition, while the corvette must make do with the 2-door, funsize one. The fact that both their torpedo systems utilise the same torpedo casing is not proof of identical capability. For all these reasons, I cannot imagine that the weapon system that delivers a Photorp could possibly be a 'one size fits all' solution, merely because of the similarity of one torpedo casing to another. But of course, to each their own Trek. |
|
|
|
Post by macrossmartin on Feb 1, 2019 4:16:46 GMT -7
My only crit with Trek Missle type wepons is lack of Seeker ones cept in Star Trek VI and Lack of Cluster munitions Without any desire to pick on Kaisernathan, I do feel the need to address this idea that photorps are unguided. (Also, we're dealing with a weapon that delivers an explosive yield measured in the hundreds of Gigatons; Why on earth would you need a cluster-munition version?!?) The very nature of a Photorp dictates that it must be guided. Think about it: 1. Ranges measured in the hundreds of thousands of kilometres. 2. Capable of travelling beyond C. 3. Hits targets under 1000m long at said ranges, even when those targets might themselves be moving beyond C. (Or at least, at notable fractions of C.) It just doesn't make sense that a weapon with those capabilities is fired over the 23rd Century equivalent of open sights! The guidance system on a Photorp must be mind-bogglingly sophisticated and accurate. I'd hazard a guess that the scenes of torpedoes missing at even-a-Stormtrooper-could-hit-from-there ranges are exactly because they have been launched from too short a range. Perhaps it takes time for a torpedo's guidance system to kick in, post-launch? One thing that does make me wonder though; we have canon evidence from the TNG era that turning at warp speed is not the best idea: Tom Paris's line about "Faster than light, no left or right" on the grounds that manoeuvres at warp place serious strain upon a ship's structure, (which makes sense), and the scene in Generations when the E-D drops from warp to alter course, then leaps into subspace once more on her new heading. Does this imply that the violent manoeuvres that are an inevitable part of tactical combat are not possible (or at least, ill-advised), when at warp? And therefore, does that mean weapon systems like Photorps are optimised for sublight combat? |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Feb 1, 2019 11:15:33 GMT -7
Too many examples of combat in Trek are contradicting each other...
I agree that Photorps are scalable things - they must be for the very reasons you just mentioned. A large ship can handle more equipment, more power, etc. than a small ship can. Photorps and Phasers are both systems that should be available in different versions for that very reason.
When I think of historical weapon systems, I can go back to old-school smooth bore canons on wooden Men of War (technically, I can go back to ancient times - simple rams, maybe a ballista etc.). A large warship could handle a whole deck of heavy cannons because it can structurally support those guns. While there may be room on a 18 gun brig to mount 32 pounder cannons, the hull can't handle the load. Additionally, those bigger guns need more clearance for recoil, and room for tackle and handling gear to train, load, etc.
When you move forward to the early 20th century - let's say - WWI again, you have battleships carrying 12-15 or even 16 inch rifles in armored turrets on armored barbettes. Those big guns can reach out miles but, need effective fire-control systems to hit anything accurately. So, those ships have massive optical range-finders in their upper-works and simple ballistic computers below in control rooms and the crews have to determine by how much that last salvo missed to correct their aim - while both their ship AND the target are still moving.
All of that adds up to a lot of space and weight to support those "Weapon Systems".
What they were using at Jutland pales into insignificance compared to what we have now - and what we have now would be considered child's play in Star Trek's world.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 1, 2019 11:31:59 GMT -7
Another case in point the torpedoes used in World War II....The USN had torpedoes that were 18 inch, (older subs, early PT boats), 19 inch (early accustic homing torpedoes fired from destroyer escorts and even submarines), 21 inch which is the primary torpedo size...fired by submarines and destroyers, and a 22 inch air dropped torpedo....
|
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Feb 2, 2019 7:13:00 GMT -7
Too many examples of combat in Trek are contradicting each other... I agree that Photorps are scalable things - they must be for the very reasons you just mentioned. A large ship can handle more equipment, more power, etc. than a small ship can. Photorps and Phasers are both systems that should be available in different versions for that very reason. All of that adds up to a lot of space and weight to support those "Weapon Systems". What they were using at Jutland pales into insignificance compared to what we have now - and what we have now would be considered child's play in Star Trek's world. What we have today (if trended into the future) would indicate the opposite. A very small ship today has enough firepower to sink a super carrier and the computers that handle these weapons can sit on a desktop. Carrying that theme into the future would mean a shuttle or runabout would have enough firepower to take out a Galaxy-class starship. Due to Star Trek establishing it owns canon and universe (literally 'where no man has gone before'), we have seen a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to starship combat, but as the universe progressed and became more refined, (for purely cinematic reasons) it seems that combat has shortened to ridiculously close ranges and photon torpedoes are slow and relatively unguided weapons (the one specially modified by Spock and McCoy is the exception - not the rule). In game terms, I strongly believe that FASA should have kept photon torpedoes very short ranged and relatively inaccurate weapons. The Constitution plays really well with its phasers using Firing Chart W and its torpedoes using Firing Chart L. It force the Constitution to get very close to its opponent to effectively use its missile weapons. When it comes to using the more accurate and long ranged torpedoes (like the FP-4 on the Enterprise-class), maneuver became a far less significant factor in the game and then the 'Alpha Strike' becomes too popular of a tactic. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Feb 2, 2019 10:25:25 GMT -7
Too many examples of combat in Trek are contradicting each other... I agree that Photorps are scalable things - they must be for the very reasons you just mentioned. A large ship can handle more equipment, more power, etc. than a small ship can. Photorps and Phasers are both systems that should be available in different versions for that very reason. All of that adds up to a lot of space and weight to support those "Weapon Systems". What they were using at Jutland pales into insignificance compared to what we have now - and what we have now would be considered child's play in Star Trek's world. What we have today (if trended into the future) would indicate the opposite. A very small ship today has enough firepower to sink a super carrier and the computers that handle these weapons can sit on a desktop. Carrying that theme into the future would mean a shuttle or runabout would have enough firepower to take out a Galaxy-class starship. Due to Star Trek establishing it owns canon and universe (literally 'where no man has gone before'), we have seen a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to starship combat, but as the universe progressed and became more refined, (for purely cinematic reasons) it seems that combat has shortened to ridiculously close ranges and photon torpedoes are slow and relatively unguided weapons (the one specially modified by Spock and McCoy is the exception - not the rule). In game terms, I strongly believe that FASA should have kept photon torpedoes very short ranged and relatively inaccurate weapons. The Constitution plays really well with its phasers using Firing Chart W and its torpedoes using Firing Chart L. It force the Constitution to get very close to its opponent to effectively use its missile weapons. When it comes to using the more accurate and long ranged torpedoes (like the FP-4 on the Enterprise-class), maneuver became a far less significant factor in the game and then the 'Alpha Strike' becomes too popular of a tactic. I think the combat system that FASA produced works reasonably well with the firing charts. The various combinations of weapons and charts makes each ship a different challenge to play. The Constitution has already been talked about here, so lets look at the Constellation, one of the most advanced ships in the late Kirk era. Well she has FH-14 phasers using firing chart T, and FP-4 torpedoes on a firing chart S: this gives the ships very efficient weapons that are balanced out by being around the same ranges. This forces the player to have to work his way under heavy beam fire to get into an effective range. Constellation can't lay off and fight a beam duel like the Enterprise can with her FH-11 phasers using the Y firing chart can. The various mixes of weapons with different charts make for a great game. It forces the player to have to learn to play each ship. This is one of the problems that so called making Photorps the same yield on each ship would take away from the game. it makes since to have these weapons the way they are. Star Trek itself set the rules for them in the various episodes, and FASA did a good job trying to translate what we have today in the system. I have played both the FASA system and the SFB system and I prefer how FASA put it together.... |
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Feb 2, 2019 16:29:52 GMT -7
The various mixes of weapons with different charts make for a great game. It forces the player to have to learn to play each ship. This is one of the problems that so called making Photorps the same yield on each ship would take away from the game. it makes since to have these weapons the way they are. Star Trek itself set the rules for them in the various episodes, and FASA did a good job trying to translate what we have today in the system. I have played both the FASA system and the SFB system and I prefer how FASA put it together.... Ships can still be different in play style based on so many factors like power, MPR, shield strength and max power - and that doesn't even mention the weapons. However, I think that shorter ranged and less accurate torpedoes contrast nicely with longer ranged and more accurate beam weapons. Missile weapons are extremely power efficient and hit a lot harder in general while beam weapons are the opposite. |
|
