STO was purchased by Cryptic and they've totally redone it - the original games producer went under if I remember right.
Printable View
STO was purchased by Cryptic and they've totally redone it - the original games producer went under if I remember right.
Yah, but after the recent movie cryptic has been pouring resources into it. Theyve even started closed beta (suggest you sign up) which usually means itll be released maximum in a year.
[QUOTE=antaran_1979;2374337]aye i meant mostly in my scenario, but also in a random combat scenario. pulling your own troops out is easy if the area is not in some way hostile to beaming, all you need is locator or comm badge, but transporting enemy troops is not so easy. it's possible if someone "lights" the target but then again this may be avoided or bypassed altogether and the fact they almost never did this to an enemy (i say again on the ground, not inside a star ship where you have perfect "eyes") sais it is not recommended tactics[/QUOTE]
Thing is - in my mind, most transporter 'success' is a statement of safety and transporter accidents can be an issue but grabbing ground troops and having an accident wont matter if its the enemy. To reduce the chance of a lock, they'd almost need to be aware of the potential attempts and take measures to counter it ahead of time. Once people start disappearing from the battle field, its almost too late to start trying to defend against it. Im basing this on a normal battle area, open ground, maybe some hills, and not a worst-case scenario with some area that naturally interferes with a transporter signal. And seriously, I dont see how transporter technology would be invented to handle everything except this.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2375329]Thing is - in my mind, most transporter 'success' is a statement of safety and transporter accidents can be an issue but grabbing ground troops and having an accident wont matter if its the enemy. To reduce the chance of a lock, they'd almost need to be aware of the potential attempts and take measures to counter it ahead of time. Once people start disappearing from the battle field, its almost too late to start trying to defend against it. Im basing this on a normal battle area, open ground, maybe some hills, and not a worst-case scenario with some area that naturally interferes with a transporter signal. And seriously, I dont see how transporter technology would be invented to handle everything except this.[/QUOTE]
I think that eventually you could jam the signal.
[QUOTE=fedr808;2375331]I think that eventually you could jam the signal.[/QUOTE]
Not unless they can
A) Discover the signal
B) Analyze the signal
C) Discover a way to disrupt the signal
D) Devise a way to project the disruption
all on the battlefield whilst in battle whilst your guys are disappearing :)
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2375333]Not unless they can
A) Discover the signal
B) Analyze the signal
C) Discover a way to disrupt the signal
D) Devise a way to project the disruption
all on the battlefield whilst in battle whilst your guys are disappearing :)[/QUOTE]
Also, I thought that you cant use transporters when your shields are up unless its in ship only.
Some ships now can transport thru their own shields, but in general you cannot.
yeah, but do you get a lock in the first place? if it is only a "clean" battle environement, without a starship in orbit, you can't expect clear locks (ot any locks) on any targets that don't want to be found. what are your plans? to random beam portions of terrain and atmosphere hoping you'd beam someone's limbs off?
[QUOTE=antaran_1979;2375490]yeah, but do you get a lock in the first place? if it is only a "clean" battle environement, without a starship in orbit, you can't expect clear locks (ot any locks) on any targets that don't want to be found. what are your plans? to random beam portions of terrain and atmosphere hoping you'd beam someone's limbs off?[/QUOTE]
transporters are ship-based technology?
"In an alternate timeline, Tom Paris had acquired a hand-held site-to-site transporter. He and Harry Kim used the device to transport from a San Francisco street to Harry's office at Starfleet Headquarters and from the office to the Earth Spacedock in 2372. This type of transporter beamed itself along with the transported personnel."
I don't know why you would think everything about a transporter and sensors have to be based on a ship, like it only works in space. Besides that, if a shuttlepod can have transporters, why not a base camp? Standard sensors should at least pinpoint targets with a variety of methods.
Hell, if I was to develop battle technology, I'd incorporate transporters into a torpedo, fire it, it locks onto enemies upon aproach, then transports them off the ground into the pattern buffer and then detonates and blows the crap out of anything left.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2375800]
1.transporters are ship-based technology?
2."In an alternate timeline, Tom Paris had acquired a hand-held site-to-site transporter. He and Harry Kim used the device to transport from a San Francisco street to Harry's office at Starfleet Headquarters and from the office to the Earth Spacedock in 2372. This type of transporter beamed itself along with the transported personnel."
3.I don't know why you would think everything about a transporter and sensors have to be based on a ship, like it only works in space. Besides that, if a shuttlepod can have transporters, why not a base camp? Standard sensors should at least pinpoint targets with a variety of methods.
4.Hell, if I was to develop battle technology, I'd incorporate transporters into a torpedo, fire it, it locks onto enemies upon aproach, then transports them off the ground into the pattern buffer and then detonates and blows the crap out of anything left.[/QUOTE]
1.what? who said that? :confused:
2.good, now equip every invading soldier with one and you can beam them around at will
3.not everything, but for the level of accuracy and detail you describe you will need some sort target finder. i mean did you ever watch ST? when the communication are out they need time to locate what they want from ORBIT in a state if the art ship. you want to tell me that a standard transporter relay or pod station can provide more detailed sensor sweeps?
4. not a bad idea....but aside from the plot device problems, how do you solve the problems of power supply, extensive sensor requirements and the enormous data storage and data processing capability required? maybe some of these problems have been solved by the late 2370's but we are yet to see sight to sight transports in a home-base free environement. who knows maybe the transphasic torpedoes are some modification of this concept?
[QUOTE=antaran_1979;2375873]1.what? who said that? :confused:
2.good, now equip every invading soldier with one and you can beam them around at will
3.not everything, but for the level of accuracy and detail you describe you will need some sort target finder. i mean did you ever watch ST? when the communication are out they need time to locate what they want from ORBIT in a state if the art ship. you want to tell me that a standard transporter relay or pod station can provide more detailed sensor sweeps?
4. not a bad idea....but aside from the plot device problems, how do you solve the problems of power supply, extensive sensor requirements and the enormous data storage and data processing capability required? maybe some of these problems have been solved by the late 2370's but we are yet to see sight to sight transports in a home-base free environement. who knows maybe the transphasic torpedoes are some modification of this concept?[/QUOTE]
1. I was asking because this seems to imply it. "yeah, but do you get a lock in the first place? if it is only a "clean" battle environement, without a starship in orbit"
2. I fuckin KNEW you would go there. The point of the hand-held site to site transporter is that its a very small gadget that utilizes transporter technology. For use in battle, I would have federation people beam into key areas for ambushes or something like that.
3. No they don't. The ship happens to BE in orbit and use the ship sensors to find people. Look how our own current technology is used to find criminals. Our military NOW can provide enough information for it to work. All they need is coordinates, and thats a simple idea, and don't even have to be accurate. Thing is, if you're in a group and your people start disappearing, what are you gonna do? Pretty sure I'd be like, "there was just 10 of us here, where the hell the other three disappear to?!"
4. I just mentioned a handheld site to site transporter. If they can make a transporter portable like that, then they can stick it into a torpedo and program it to scan for targets, or you can provide them from an external sensor or mark targets or how ever you want to lock onto them. Geez it isnt THAT fuckin imaginative.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2376330]1. I was asking because this seems to imply it. "yeah, but do you get a lock in the first place? if it is only a "clean" battle environement, without a starship in orbit"
2. I fuckin KNEW you would go there. The point of the hand-held site to site transporter is that its a very small gadget that utilizes transporter technology. For use in battle, I would have federation people beam into key areas for ambushes or something like that.
3. No they don't. The ship happens to BE in orbit and use the ship sensors to find people. Look how our own current technology is used to find criminals. Our military NOW can provide enough information for it to work. All they need is coordinates, and thats a simple idea, and don't even have to be accurate. Thing is, if you're in a group and your people start disappearing, what are you gonna do? Pretty sure I'd be like, "there was just 10 of us here, where the hell the other three disappear to?!"
4. I just mentioned a handheld site to site transporter. If they can make a transporter portable like that, then they can stick it into a torpedo and program it to scan for targets, or you can provide them from an external sensor or mark targets or how ever you want to lock onto them. Geez it isnt THAT fuckin imaginative.[/QUOTE]
1. well then please explain the method of optaining a lock without a sensor sweep
2.dude i ment the enemy soldiers, in order to transport them around (whicj is what you proposed) you will need to equip every enemy with a portable transporter :m:
3.dude, you are confulisng inteligence with sensor data, transporters don't work in a blind mode, you need to point out where something is and then optain a clear lock. who is going to provide the coordinates? why would the enemy stand still for you to use them? and even if you had them, wy do you think that the transporter could optain a lock without some target finder?
4.i did say it "may" be possible. my only doubt lies in the opservation that all portable transporters were used in areas where there already were operating transporter stations, who knows maybe they use those as relay points? i only speculate afcorse, but the whole portable transporter thingy never made much sense to me. here were we 15years into TNG telling us that the storing of all the data about a single person beaming rewuires teraquads of data, and entire supercomputers dedicated to the task and now we can put them in a size of a comm badge? if i had to explain it to make SOME sense out of it i'd say those portable transporters act as some sort of "remotes" for the large "real"transporters to do their job.
yeah whatever. Im finished
edit - (comes back) wow I cant believe I killed my previous post where my first impulse was to... shit, I'll just ask you cuzz I'm lost as to why you say some of the stupid shit you do.
1. "1.what? who said that?" < WTF? I asked you if its ship based technology, you answer a question with a question, like, no - thats not what you're getting at, then argue all kinds of shit that a ship would be needed. And I STILL don't believe a ship is necessary at all. Military would most likely have developed adequate sensors, kinda like how they already did.
2. How do I spell it out? The statement was NOT suggesting they'd utilize the exact function of a handheld site to site transporter. I mentioned it to bring evidence of size information to the discussion. How it works or how you think it would be used is irrelevant.
3. Lets see. I've seen people transported while falling, flying, etc. Why do they need to stand still? You also don't need to attain a clear lock. Thats only a safety feature so you don't screw up and lose somebody, which in this case is not a concern. You bypass the lock and transport from coordinates from any typical sensor scan for whatever you need sensors to look for. You can search for heat signatures for all I care and beam parts of engines and weapons and anything else. What's it matter?
If its not enough for you to accept a ground based scanning system, just fly an unmanned craft over the zone and send back information about the enemy positions... hell they could send several, small ones, triangulate coordinates for more precision. You seriously need to stop acting like its that complicated of an idea, like the kings of all sci-fi ingenuity wouldn't be able to put some existing shit together to beam enemies off the battle field and just purge the buffers or whatever and go again.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2373960]You simply cant hope to win a ground assault against opponents with transporter technology. But if you wanted a war suggest without transporters, Trek has the better weapon selection. Not to mention, Trek weapons are highly configurable. The only problem the trek side would have is deciding HOW they want to beat them.[/QUOTE]
1.Really? Transporter tech is a battle winner? Try beaming up the entire Imperial Legion.
2.Better weapon selction!?! AT-AT, AT-ST, TIE Bombers, SPMA-T's.(Yes they're vehicles but they are used in combat) They can't be beamed(?). Plus SW always brings a lot of infantry.
3.Lets face it, in a space battle it's hard to tell, but on land come on that's 50% of SW.
[QUOTE=Omega133;2377377]1.Really? Transporter tech is a battle winner? Try beaming up the entire Imperial Legion.
2.Better weapon selction!?! AT-AT, AT-ST, TIE Bombers, SPMA-T's.(Yes they're vehicles but they are used in combat) They can't be beamed(?). Plus SW always brings a lot of infantry.
3.Lets face it, in a space battle it's hard to tell, but on land come on that's 50% of SW.[/QUOTE]
1) Dont' have to - all we have to do is beam out a few parts... the power core being a good start
2) Those are vehicles... and they CAN be beamed... and none of that matters. Unlike your lasers, I'm pretty sure a tetryon pulse disruptor will punch thru even an AT-AT's armor with little problem. I mean, c'mon, we're talking machines able to be taken down with WIRES wrapped around their LEGS... they aren't that great!
3) Yes, and 99% of it's suck factor.
Here's a scenario:
Trek has a fortified base with a localized shield and a force of maybe 200 soldiers and a few shuttlecraft, with one starship (say an Intrepid class for example)
SW lands nearby and launches an invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops, dozens of AT-AT's, and hundreds of AT-ST's and AT-PT's.
The shuttles take off and rain death from above with micro-torpedoes and phaser bursts, destroying first the AT-ST's and AT-PT's, then going after soldiers, wiping out dozens per shot.
The Intrepid fires a few low-yield photons from orbit and knocks the AT-AT's out of comission, then uses phaser strikes to vaporize large chunks of the SW troop formations.
The soldiers in the garrison sit back and sip their Ale as they watch the carnage unfold, especially as the StormTroopers realize they can't actually walk THRU the shields, unlike their own pathetic, useless excuse for a shield.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2375329]Thing is - in my mind, most transporter 'success' is a statement of safety and transporter accidents can be an issue but grabbing ground troops and having an accident wont matter if its the enemy. To reduce the chance of a lock, they'd almost need to be aware of the potential attempts and take measures to counter it ahead of time. Once people start disappearing from the battle field, its almost too late to start trying to defend against it. Im basing this on a normal battle area, open ground, maybe some hills, and not a worst-case scenario with some area that naturally interferes with a transporter signal. And seriously, I dont see how transporter technology would be invented to handle everything except this.[/QUOTE]
Small problem in 99.9999% of transporter failures the object stays where it is, completely unharmed and un moved. Only very rarely do malformations occur.
Not only that for the transporter to start trying to disassemble tohe atoms at point A it has to be able to detect the atoms at point A.
Beaming a person that is falling in a known gravity is quite easy as gravity accelration and terminal velocity is so easy to calculate a computer like the transporter buffer system can do it and not affect the calculations needed to do the actual transport. Now think about a ship accellerating and decelerating at several G and moving in random direction and suddenly the equations are impossible.
Actually field base transporter are actually a wonderful idea, but it would be much like setting up a MASH unit. It would take days before optimum effectivness is acchieved. Plus you would need massive sensor arrays and power equipment. It would be used mostly for main bases not advance positions.
As for the personal traporter unit. My guess, given where and how it is used, is that is basically a remote control allowing you to use the planetary Transporter grid away from one of the terminals and of course without the need to send a transmission to a another person. Thus making it a stealth unit.
In ground combat, SW wins hands down. They still understand how to wage a land war. In fact even if you take a system in SW you might have to prepess the natives. If you can scare them from orbit great, if not you send the infantry in. Hell, sometimes you send the infantry to make a successful takeover as in the case of Hoth.
Now Star Trek vs Star Wars in a war is clearly going to go to Star Wars. Star trek isn;t geared for a war of that magnitude. Hell the Dominion War would be considered a brush war by SW standards. ST ships are meant more for exporation than they are actual war.
Star trek is outnumbered, out teched and out powered. It's like Star Trek is John McClane and Star Wars is a totally pissed off Incredible Hulk. Yeah John is a good guy and he's resourceful, but he just doesn;t have the ability to take on the Hulk and win.
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2377164]yeah whatever. Im finished
edit - (comes back) wow I cant believe I killed my previous post where my first impulse was to... shit, I'll just ask you cuzz I'm lost as to why you say some of the stupid shit you do.
1. "1.what? who said that?" < WTF? I asked you if its ship based technology, you answer a question with a question, like, no - thats not what you're getting at, then argue all kinds of shit that a ship would be needed. And I STILL don't believe a ship is necessary at all. Military would most likely have developed adequate sensors, kinda like how they already did.
2. How do I spell it out? The statement was NOT suggesting they'd utilize the exact function of a handheld site to site transporter. I mentioned it to bring evidence of size information to the discussion. How it works or how you think it would be used is irrelevant.
3. Lets see. I've seen people transported while falling, flying, etc. Why do they need to stand still? You also don't need to attain a clear lock. Thats only a safety feature so you don't screw up and lose somebody, which in this case is not a concern. You bypass the lock and transport from coordinates from any typical sensor scan for whatever you need sensors to look for. You can search for heat signatures for all I care and beam parts of engines and weapons and anything else. What's it matter?
If its not enough for you to accept a ground based scanning system, just fly an unmanned craft over the zone and send back information about the enemy positions... hell they could send several, small ones, triangulate coordinates for more precision. You seriously need to stop acting like its that complicated of an idea, like the kings of all sci-fi ingenuity wouldn't be able to put some existing shit together to beam enemies off the battle field and just purge the buffers or whatever and go again.[/QUOTE]
1. then (as i said) point out to the episode/movie where this tech was used to beam out/off/on/in enemy troops or invaders on the ground. i know that you and i can come up with numerous ways to increase the output of E-Ds phasers, but you or i don't count if our methods are not supported by the shows/movies implicitly or explicitly.
2. then the size issue is moot. this was all about using transporters as weapons in a very brute and most of all never utilised way.
3.falling yes, flying yes, and each and every time from a star ship in orbit. and always with the most sofisticated ship they have. as for from ground facilities? never. now, can you use isolinear tags? yes (insurrection). can you use those rod-like objects to triangulate on a target (used in TNG on numerous ocasions)? by all means. but all those gadgets can be avoided or neutralised. even the survailance crafts can be shut down. and all for what? so a 6-8 pod transporter can try and dematerialise 6-8 people at the time? i hate to say this again, but if transporters were really good at this they would have been used as such. and if Data or Geordy never thought of it i doubt you or i can do it.
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2377434]1) Dont' have to - all we have to do is beam out a few parts... the power core being a good start[/quote]
Well since you can't even seem to do that against unmoving, unshielded ships how are you going to attempt it versus shielded ships with high density hulls that are whizzing by at .25 light.
[QUOTE]2) Those are vehicles... and they CAN be beamed... and none of that matters. Unlike your lasers, I'm pretty sure a tetryon pulse disruptor will punch thru even an AT-AT's armor with little problem. I mean, c'mon, we're talking machines able to be taken down with WIRES wrapped around their LEGS... they aren't that great![/QUOTE]
Can they now? Never seen anything as big as an AT_ST beamed, except by the Voth. Even then how are you getting by the ECM they use to make sensor guided missile miss.
As for the *wire* that is towing cable with thirty to forty ton. Meaning it takes 30 to 40 tons of weaight to break it. Add in the dan AT-AT did not fall untill four passes were done and I think you get a better picture.
[QUOTE]3) Yes, and 99% of it's suck factor. [/QUOTE]
Says you. Then again you have not once put up any fact and in fact have ignored ST canon repeatedly/
[quote]Here's a scenario:
Trek has a fortified base with a localized shield and a force of maybe 200 soldiers and a few shuttlecraft, with one starship (say an Intrepid class for example)
SW lands nearby and launches an invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops, dozens of AT-AT's, and hundreds of AT-ST's and AT-PT's.
The shuttles take off and rain death from above with micro-torpedoes and phaser bursts, destroying first the AT-ST's and AT-PT's, then going after soldiers, wiping out dozens per shot.
The Intrepid fires a few low-yield photons from orbit and knocks the AT-AT's out of comission, then uses phaser strikes to vaporize large chunks of the SW troop formations.
The soldiers in the garrison sit back and sip their Ale as they watch the carnage unfold, especially as the StormTroopers realize they can't actually walk THRU the shields, unlike their own pathetic, useless excuse for a shield.[/QUOTE]
OK, real scenario.
ST forces as is. SW forces as is with transporting ISD with full compliment of support craft.
ISD arrives and immediately launched the three strike cruisers and three escort cruisers in dock. The Strike cruisers start making an attack run on the Intrepid class shipmoving at .25 light or full impulse. ISD starts launching drop ships with TIE fighter escorts while the escort cruisers provide cover fire for both. At the same time the ISD is coordinating with the Strike cruisers and starts offering heavy support making it impossible for the Intrepid class to dodge all the Turbolaser blasts. As the Dropships land the Stormtorrper hurridely start setting up the antiaircraft batteries as AT-AT and AT-ST begins readying for the assault. back in space the Strike Cruisers have each locked tracor beams onto the Intrepid class starship and started using their ion engines to slow the nimble craft down. The ISD starts pepering it with ION blasts decimating the ships systems and forcing it to eject the core or have it breach.
On the ground the assault has begun, the defenders setting up tranches and launching their meager airforce. The attacking force responds with TIE support wiping the shuttles out of the sky before they can even aproach enough to rain their phaser terror on the troops. AT-AT an AT-ST star their assault. With ISD and TIE fighter support the base is not going to survive.
Oh and BTW it is only Gungan shields that you can stepped through in SW
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2377493]
Actually field base transporter are actually a wonderful idea, but it would be much like setting up a MASH unit. It would take days before optimum effectivness is acchieved. Plus you would need massive sensor arrays and power equipment. It would be used mostly for main bases not advance positions.
As for the personal traporter unit. My guess, given where and how it is used, is that is basically a remote control allowing you to use the planetary Transporter grid away from one of the terminals and of course without the need to send a transmission to a another person. Thus making it a stealth unit.[/QUOTE]
i compleatly agree on both accounts. btw good to see you back :)