Out of Pod Experience

Except when they engage at ranges in single-digit kilometers, which is the majority of the time. Let's look at the movies, since a complete listing of TV combat would be too long (though there's plenty of short-range combat there as well):

ST I: no ship vs. ship combat.
ST II: combat at short visual range with little relative speed, even outside the magic sensor-blinding nebula.
ST III: combat at short visual range with little relative speed.
ST IV: no ship vs. ship combat.
ST V: no ship vs. ship combat.
ST VI: combat at short visual range with little relative speed.
ST VII: combat at short visual range with little relative speed, including laughably poor accuracy even at such short ranges.
ST VIII: combat at short visual range with little relative speed (less than the length of the Borg cube).
ST IX: combat at short visual range with little relative speed.
ST X: unwatchably bad, but IIRC still short range and low relative speed.
ST 2009: combat at short visual range with little relative speed, to the point where the opening battle is fought INSIDE the Romulan ship.

So, out of all of the Star Trek movies, the only ones which don't show starship combat happening at short range and low speed are the movies which don't show starship combat at all.



30 ISOtons, you mean. In other words, 30 tons, or about the explosive power of the smallest nuclear weapons ever built.



Thank you for proving my point about numbers being more important than technology names.

(I will of course note that you felt that "antimatter warhead" was enough description to state that Star Trek weapons are better.)



So, just what bizarre alternate-reality "Star Trek" are YOU watching? Because in the real world, Star Trek shows example after example of combat happening at ranges much less than that with no such splash damage.

And now it makes perfect sense. You're getting all of your information from a site run by the guy who defines "rabid fanboy" and "dishonest moron". It's a tragic case, really, long past the point where everyone else in the debate moved on to more interesting things, and even his fellow Star Trek fans abandoned him as an embarrassment to their community, he kept up his sad and lonely obsession even at the cost of his entire social life.

The only question here is whether you're really stupid enough to agree with him, or just happened to find his site as a top google result.



So if it isn't onscreen, where exactly IS it seen? The non-canon novels? The non-canon video games?

Does it matter? I was bored. Silly discussion enjoyed.

Really StarDestroyer.net has better figures for this kind of thing and I have the tech manual books at home but it's time I went to bed and I wanted to thank you all for playing.

In the end, the truth we all know is this.

'Ohhh myyyy'

You know that part where ship still have armor resistances even without hardeners fitted, and armor HP even without armor plates? Could the obvious conclusion here be that even without specific modules fitted, EVE ships have "armor" that is more than just a simple sheet of metal?

Also, where exactly is your proof that a Trident missile is capable of doing anything to an EVE ship? I admit that I don't watch the news as much as I should, but I'm pretty sure I would've heard if we'd test fired one against an EVE cruiser.



Actually they don't, unless you're one of those morons who doesn't know that there's no air in space.

(Hint: the giant fireball from a nuke happens because of the atmosphere, in space you'd just have a flash lasting a few microseconds at most. It's pretty reasonable to assume that a pod's image systems would simply filter this out as an annoying distraction.)



Point defense I'll give you (though it's purely a game balance issue, not a fiction one), but you do realize that MIRV warheads are an incredibly stupid idea in space combat, right? The whole point of breaking up your missile into multiple warheads is to more efficiently distribute them across an area target like a city (a small warhead on each factory/rail yard/etc is more destructive than a single big one on the center of the city). For concentrating maximum firepower on a single target, you use a single massive warhead and don't waste payload space on the MIRV system.

PS: before you say it, multiple warheads have very limited guidance ability (you pretty much have to aim them all at the same city), and are utterly useless at protecting a missile from interception.


As for missile velocity, you're wrong about that as well. Modern missiles only come close if you consider ballistic missiles. You know, the kind where the missile accelerates along a fixed trajectory, and can't maneuver. I'll be impressed when you show me a real life missile that can go several kilometers per second AND make multiple 180* turns to follow a target.

PPS: my Cerberus and its 10km/s missiles laughs at your mere 6km/s Trident.



Shocking. Did you know that an artillery shell moving on a ballistic trajectory is an easier target than an extremely maneuverable drone?

Also, note that these accurate missiles are much less powerful than EVE missiles. It's nice that your small kinetic-kill interceptor can hit an incoming artillery shell, but what about those nuclear ICBMs you were talking about? Oh yeah, they have an accuracy measured in hundreds of meters, and they have to be programmed with their target far in advance of firing (IOW, good luck hitting a moving target with one).

It's not just about getting a good sensor image, it's about how easy the target is. If you're using radar to track the incoming shell or ICBM, you know its exact location at every future point in time until impact, so shooting it down is just a simple matter of throwing something in its path. The missile (or bullet) itself doesn't need a lock, it just needs a way to very accurately be at a specific point in time and space. Sure, it's nice to have terminal guidance on your interceptor to make the final course corrections, but it's still a very easy problem to solve.

The IR-homing missile, on the other hand, has a VERY difficult problem. The target might be glowing nice and bright, but it's also a very FAST target, and a missile's rocket motor burns out very quickly. If the direction and relative motion of the target aren't favorable, or the missile falls for an IR flare for even a second, it's very easy to end up in a situation where the missile simply can't get to the target no matter how nice a picture its sensors are getting. And even with an experienced pilot holding their fire until the right moment every modern anti-aircraft missile uses a proximity fuse instead of trying for a direct hit.

It's the "fast and maneuverable" part that makes EVE missiles ineffective against drones. Getting a lock on a drone is easy, but there's no way your missile is ever going to catch one for a direct hit. The damage reduction represents the fact that your missile is using a proximity fuse and actually exploding a fair distance away from the drone.

Real world tests have shown that warheads smaller than 100kt left real Battleships with massive plate armour a twisted pile of scrap. EVE armour doesn't need nukes or antimatter to penetrate it, simple kinetic kill warheads like Sabot rounds and solid slugs can do the job. Armour in New Eden is not that tough obviously. Its no stretch of the imagination to see the results of a direct impact from six 4mt warheads would have on a cruiser hull.



I was referring to the destructive effects, but anyway you dont get a "fireball" but you do get an expanding cloud of energised particles. You know that 2/3 stage nukes are effectively causing metal to undergo fusion right? Small nukes popped of in space left a flash with a small cloud of expanding material for a couple of seconds before it dispersed. Something much bigger would be much more obvious.



Thank you for making my point for me, your uber EVE tech (the most extreme example of it to) only manages a ****** velocity like that in space compared to a real world missile in an atmosphere. The THAAD missile can twist and turn, fly a corkscrew holding pattern if it briefly loses its target or change its target if redirected. Other modern air defense missiles can do the same, THAAD is just one of the fastest and most accurate.

Anyhow of course I wouldnt suggest that a real life weapon would be any use against space ships, just that if you fired weapons of the same accuracy and destructive power of real life systems in New Eden they would compare well to the EVE weapons.

Your arguing a lost cause, "its the nanobots" is a poor argument. We see in EVE that simple explosive shells and missiles and kinetic impacts punch through the armour and shields in EVE perfectly well. The ships standard armour has no nanobots and the resistances are there because the various materials have varying property's that make them resistant to different types of damage. More advanced ships use exotic materials in their armour making them tougher, even when the nano technology is used it doesn't make it invincible. Sabot rounds made of titanium can punch through the advanced armour with additional protection afforded by nano tech. If the EVE sabot made from titanium can do it a depleted uranium round from the real world can do it.

Frigate projectiles compare to field guns and howitzers with frigate missiles comparing to AA missiles like an AIM-120. Needless to say although the payloads are similar the EVE kit lacks the same range and accuracy by a significant amount.

Cruiser sized stuff compares to Naval artillery and larger missiles like Exocets, THAADs, Harpoons or AIM-26 and so, needless to say once again they lack in range and accuracy.

BS sized stuff compares to the very largest Naval artillery/experimental atomic artillery and theatre ballistic missiles, accuracy is about the same but range is still far worse than things modern governments have dismissed as obsolete.

When you look at most of the projectile or missile warheads they are usually packets of charged particles or kinetic kill warheads and conventional explosives, in some cases they are small nukes. The solid slugs and kinetic kill sabot rounds are comparable in effectiveness to the most destructive stuff. Like I said before the only thing they have that's better than RL stuff is the rapid fire capability.

My ultimate point to all of this is that real world weapons provide no threat at all to the ships in Star Trek, it would be laughable to say other wise. EVE weapons are so comparable to real world weapons it means that EVE weapons provide no threat to ships in Star Trek. A slug made of lead and coated in crystallised carbon would never hurt the shields in Star Trek, the most powerful projectile warheads have only twice the destructive potential of that lead slug.

In Star Trek online the enemies are at your weapon range when they're at 10km or closer - so clearly Eve wins

Fortunately there is a simple answer to the question: according to the people who actually create Star Trek and approve licensed products, only the TV shows and movies are canon. Everything else, including your "torpedo facts", is non-canon.

From where exactly? Unless "1.5kg of antimatter" was explicitly stated in either a movie or TV episode, the number is no more than fanfiction.

Yes.

The policy of the people who determine what is canon for Star Trek is that exactly two things are canon:

1) The movies.

2) The TV shows.

Everything else is non-canon. End of discussion.



Hint for the clueless: the ~25t number is given in a licensed Star Trek book, which is just as canon (that is, not canon at all) as what you posted. If you don't like the number, feel free to write hate mail to the author.