In the Origianl Series, space combat typically occurred at warp speeds, even with openents moving at different warp speeds, or one at warp and the other not. Why did they stop doing that in TNG era? Seems space combat involves warping near someone and slugging it out within a few ship-lengths away. In the TOS era they fought at tens and hundreds of thousands of kilometers from each other. It seems that warping at higher speeds would give a clear maneuvering advantage and open up all sorts of tactical possibilities. Why or how did this change?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Sargon,
Let's say you try and shoot someone with phasers. You're both going warp 5. You're far enough behind you're out of phaser range, so you tell your helm to go to warp 5.5, then you tell tactical to open fire. Whoops, you just overshot your opponent and now you're too far out of range in the opposite direction. You tell your helm to reduce speed to warp 4.5 so your opponent will catch up, and you tell tactical to open fire. Whoops. Your opponent jumped up to warp 5.5 to shoot up your ass, and now he's out of range again. You get ticked and order warp six, and all weapons fire. Oh, guess what? He dropped down to warp one, changed course, and is now going warp seven in another direction. You order warp eight to catch up, and then he suddenly pops his clutch, coasts into close orbit of a star, and while you're in there trying to find him, he sneaks up your ass and lights up your nacelles with a volley of photons. He dodges away, smacking you with phasers and torpedoes, because, now that you're both out of warp, and with impulse drives, neither ship can move fast enough to evade the other's weapons. If you want to engage your enemy, you need to bring them out of warp before you destroy them.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I blame it on Star Wars. Producers, writers, SFX artists, and fans have been so brainwashed by Star Wars that they believe combat must occur at very low sublight speeds and ranges of a few ship-lengths with starships banking like fighter jets.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Maybe. But I think Jeff is right here. Phasers shouldn't even work at warp speeds, and when you take into account the relative speeds of two ships doing, say warp 5, they only have to be facing away from each other for a couple of seconds and they'll be out of weapons range.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Actually it's director Nicholas Meyer's doing. He wanted to make Star Trek seem more like the Horatio Hornblower books of CS Forester and therefore he wanted the battles between Enterprise and Reliant to seem like tall sailing ships of the line fighting in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Which has ONLY worked in Wrath and maybe Country.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It's at the core of much of TNG, too, really. Or at least TNG wasn't modeled after SW aircraft dogfights or WWI style one-hit-sinks-ship gun battles or WWII/cold war sub-to-ship or sub-to-sub intrigue. Or anything else recognizable.
Things common with classic sailing ship era combat include long high-speed pursuits during which no shots are fired, brief point-blank gunfire where individual shots are very weak, the idea that combat beyond visual ranges is impossible, the neat lining up of ships... All that is missing is the regal elegance of slowly maneuvering combatants, made impossible by the too short, too cheap VFX shots. And the generous use of grappling hooks and boarding parties.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
TNG battles were a fair bit different from TWOK, and usually went along the following lines:
1/ Ship appears. 2/ Picard tries to communicate. No answer. 3/ Ship hits Enterprise. 4/ Worf mentions shield level. 5/ Ship hits Enterprise 6/ Worf says shield level. 7/ Data mentions a system failing. 8/ Ship hits Enterprise again. 9/ Picard orders Worf to fire a single shot. 10/ Picard orders an evasice manouver. 11/ Cycles repeats from 3.
Although there was a variation, which went
1/ Ship appears. 2/ Worf says that ship is really weak. 3/ Ship fires puny shot at Enterprise. 4/ Worf says that shields are barely affected. 5/ Picard and co laugh heartily. 6/ Ship fires again. 7/ Picard and co laugh heartily again. And maybe slap their thighs. 8/ Ship fires again. 9/ Picard orders Worf to fire a small, weak shot at ship. 10/ Ships shields collapse. 11/ Picard and co laugh heartily. 12/ Ship contacts Enterprise, desperate to talk nicely. 13/ Picard and co laugh heartily, and retire for ale and cigars.
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sargon: In the Origianl Series, space combat typically occurred at warp speeds, even with openents moving at different warp speeds, or one at warp and the other not. Why did they stop doing that in TNG era? Seems space combat involves warping near someone and slugging it out within a few ship-lengths away. In the TOS era they fought at tens and hundreds of thousands of kilometers from each other. It seems that warping at higher speeds would give a clear maneuvering advantage and open up all sorts of tactical possibilities. Why or how did this change?
A few thoughts... 1. Star Wars and Star Trek 2 influenced the future portrayal of Star Trek battles. Star Wars made it cool to the masses to have slow-moving, close-range space combat. Star Trek 2 gave us two *crippled* ships fighting at close-range and everyone mistakenly thinks thats how combat is in Star Trek. IMO.
2. In TOS, phaser/disruptor range seem to be 75,000km to 100,000km. By TNG, phaser ranges have improved to 300,000km. Phaser/disruptor damage is related to distance. The shorter the range, the more damage inflicted. Photons at least 90,000km. In Star Trek 1, photons were good as far as 40AU (or 4AU, depending on which version of the movie you watch).
With these ranges:
A. Warp vs warp would be brief volleys as they pass and then circle around to re-engage because of the speeds involved. Less power would be available for weapons as a majority would be devoted to warp and shields.
B. Warp vs sublight would be strafing runs for the warp ship looking for the weak side of the shields. The warp ship would have less power for weapons as power is in warp and shields. The sublight ship would have more power in shields and weapons and less or none in warp.
C. Sublight vs sublight would be longer volleys as they pass and then circle around to re-engage because of the slower speeds involved. The ships would have more power in weapons and shields and less or no power in warp.
A guess at why a majority of TNG/DS9 combat seems to involve a variant of C (sublight vs sublight). 1. A majority of engagement occurs after the E-D stops point-blank in front of a combatant ship, giving little or no time to maneuver. 2. Shield efficiency has improved to a point that in order to bring down an enemy shield, one must get close enough and stay long enough to inflict damage to shields. A short volley from a warp pass isn't enough to drop the shields of a sublight ship (given equal ships). 3. Against uneven powered ships, then engagement can occur at the good ol' long ranges of TOS. Note how quickly the Pheonix destroys a Cardassian warship at long-range in "The Wounded". Sometimes, the writers do get it right. The majority, tho, the writers/producers seem to like the senseless carnage of a close-range, maneuver-less slugfest.
Anyway, all IMHO Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Maybe. But I think Jeff is right here. Phasers shouldn't even work at warp speeds, and when you take into account the relative speeds of two ships doing, say warp 5, they only have to be facing away from each other for a couple of seconds and they'll be out of weapons range.
I dunno. Almost every instance of warp vs warp combat seems to indicate the ships are traveling the same direction at warp but one or both ships are maneuvering within that direction (like 2 ships caught in a very fast current). The ship with better acceleration can disengage from combat by increasing/decreasing speed and re-engage by catching up/passing.
Posted by blssdwlf (Member # 1024) on :
This is assuming that ships computers can't properly maintain distance/closing speeds/position with each other and/or one ship has much, much better ability to accelerate than the other.
Given ships with similiar accelation capabilities, they could stay within combat range and have great difficulty disengaging from each other.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Sargon,
Let's say you try and shoot someone with phasers. You're both going warp 5. You're far enough behind you're out of phaser range, so you tell your helm to go to warp 5.5, then you tell tactical to open fire. Whoops, you just overshot your opponent and now you're too far out of range in the opposite direction. You tell your helm to reduce speed to warp 4.5 so your opponent will catch up, and you tell tactical to open fire. Whoops. Your opponent jumped up to warp 5.5 to shoot up your ass, and now he's out of range again. You get ticked and order warp six, and all weapons fire. Oh, guess what? He dropped down to warp one, changed course, and is now going warp seven in another direction. You order warp eight to catch up, and then he suddenly pops his clutch, coasts into close orbit of a star, and while you're in there trying to find him, he sneaks up your ass and lights up your nacelles with a volley of photons. He dodges away, smacking you with phasers and torpedoes, because, now that you're both out of warp, and with impulse drives, neither ship can move fast enough to evade the other's weapons. If you want to engage your enemy, you need to bring them out of warp before you destroy them.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
With all that nifty LCARS buttons I think there's a good chance that there's a good ol' Match speed button.
Or you just order your helmsman to "stay on target" and let him worry about speed and course changes.
Also, "Fleet encounters usually end up as close-range affairs, either to preclude the use of torpedoes (known to be unsafe if fired at extremely close range), or to preclude the use of fleet fire concentration on individual ships" (by Guardian 2000) or to simply cut response time...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: With all that nifty LCARS buttons I think there's a good chance that there's a good ol' Match speed button.
Or you just order your helmsman to "stay on target" and let him worry about speed and course changes.
Also, "Fleet encounters usually end up as close-range affairs, either to preclude the use of torpedoes (known to be unsafe if fired at extremely close range), or to preclude the use of fleet fire concentration on individual ships" (by Guardian 2000) or to simply cut response time...
In a a space combat game I worked on a decade back, we actually had to think this kind of thing through, because even at sublight elocities it was really impossible to stay in firing range of a determined enemy vessel (this was a real-time space combat game). We ended up leeting the computer sheet the ship mostly based on some simple controls (although you COULD go manual if you wanted).
SHADO A "shadowing" maneuver whereby the player's ship would attempt to maintain a range (say 30,000 km) and relative position (say due aft) of the target vessel. Because the ship was not only trying to maintain distance and heading but also a position relative to the other vessel, it was one of the most difficult things for even the ship's computer to do.
POSIT A "positioning" manueuver that worked just like SHADO, except it just matched distance and trajectory.
FACE SHIELDS allowed you to choose which shield to try to keep towards the enemy ship. This made maneuvering even more tricky because you were not only trying to hold range, match trajectory or escape, but also keep one side of the ship towards your opponent!
We also had macro maneuvers, which you'd assume a real combat starship would have. For instance, ESCAPE, in which the computer determines the heading of the enemy vessel and then thrusts at 100% power in the exact opposite direction in an attempt to gain the maximum distance from the opponent (who has to turn around). We also had an EVADE function which did rapid and random trajectory changes.
I'd say at any space combat velocities as seen on Trek you'd never actually have the Conn/Helmsman steer the ship other than inputing macros. You'd do things like overtake at 110% the opponent's speed, attempt intercept in X minutes, etc. You'd never say "go to warp 9.2"
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: We ended up leeting the computer sheet the ship
That sounds like dirty porn for people who get turned on by warp nacelles.
And hang on, I had ROE 2 on the Amiga. Although it crashed a lot. Someone had given it to me though, so I blame them for doing something to the disk.
I remember that front end. And the "surrender or die" thing. I think. And that scary face. Again, I think. I might be imagining it.
I can think of two other games that have attempted realistic space combat. Frontier: Elite 2, which was a real mess. I'm sure it was accurate, but it wasn't fun. Ships shooting past each other, frantic turning, ships shooting past each other. And they were almost impossible to hit, too.
The other is Independence War (or I-War) and it's sequel, Edge Of Chaos (which, incidently, I've just picked up on budget for a tenner). This attempted to, like ROE 2 (IIRC), simulate an entire starship (albeit a small starship), and had proper newtonian physics (yes) as well as crazy sci-fi (science fiction) thingies.
It was also a lot of fun, if fairly hard to get into, especially after Freespace. If you can get the hang of momentum, differing thrusters, and crazy whatnot, then circle strafing a large ship is enormously satisfying.
In short, buy Edge Of Chaos. You can seperate the front of the ship and everything! Woo!
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
ooh i just had a Begin Tactical Starship Simulator flashback >COURS 179 5.9 >ORD DEFIA ESC YORKT 3000 >LOA PR ALL 50 20 >PURS CRO 5.9 >ORD POTEM ATT CRO >LOA TOR ALL 100 >LOA PH ALL >LOC TOR CRO 0 >TOR ALL >RANG 5500 >ORD YORKT RET >LOC PH CRO >PH 1 3 5 15 >ELU CRO 9 >PRO CRO >DET lv106 >UNLOA TOR ALL >COURS 15 2.5 >DROP ALL
i miss 1986.. killing klingons was simpler back then
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: We ended up leeting the computer sheet the ship
That sounds like dirty porn for people who get turned on by warp nacelles.
And hang on, I had ROE 2 on the Amiga. Although it crashed a lot. Someone had given it to me though, so I blame them for doing something to the disk.
I disown the Amiga version. We never intended to do it. The publisher forced the issue at the last minute and there was a rush to port it. A standard Amiga didn't have 256 color displays then, so all kinds of stuff had to be compromised, amongst other things.
I remember that ROE and ROE2 went for 2D space representations beause Omnitrend had used true 3D space in Universe, and they had so many tech support calls from people who couldn't understand how to steer in 3D space (their pattern indicated "two dimensional thinking") that a decision was made to keep all the ships on the ecliptic plane.
ROE2 got a lot of good reviews and awards, but no one ever saw it...because Impressions (the publisher) blew the entire ad budget 6 weeks before th games hit the shelf and no one knew it was there. My favorite was this Compute! review review by the then editor of OMNI magazine...
The fun thing about doing those games was doing an LCARS type interface but actually making it functional. I wrote an article about that for Computer Gaming World back in 1991.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
WOW! Mr. Neutron, that's so cool. I'm very curious to try this game out. I'll have to start hunting around and see if I can't pick up a used copy of it somewhere. I found a (very brief) review of the game by Jerry Pournelle(!) from BYTE magazine. Very awesome.
I suspect that you are right about making the computer handle the maneuvering. If you had one person whose only job was maneuvering (without concern for the weapons or interfacing with other ships), then it' might be be allright (though very difficult in 3D), but with one person trying to handle everything they'd be driven mad. Anyway I had no idea and it's very, very cool stuff. If you wouldn't mind, I'd love to pick your brain a bit about this as I'm roughing out the combat system for my show and I want to try to make it as realistic as possible without sacrificing too much drama (or perhaps I have that backwards.)
Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :
You can find a copy of the original Rules of Engagement here and Rules of Engagement 2 here. Hope you enjoy them as I have. A tip: if you have Windows XP, change the games .exe to Win95 compatability with 256 colors, or else the game goes really screwy on you.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)