Torpedo Guidance Systems

posted on October 12th, 2010, 9:02 pm

Those torpedoes should have detonated.  Even if they didn't, they should have been programmed to turn back in the event of a miss.  They have a guidance system, but not an intelligence system?  But the food replicators have an intelligence system?  They put the intelligence system in the wrong place!

It doesn't make sense that a torpedo would think it hit it's target.  It should have a tough sensor that tells it whether or not it hit something!  If the navigational system says it hit something, it should at least detonate instead of flying past the target.  Electronic Countermeasures can be easily countered just by changing what the torpedo uses to home in on it's target.

And there is no reason why the phasers should have missed!

[Tyler]

posted on October 12th, 2010, 9:19 pm

Last edited by Tyler on October 12th, 2010, 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Torpedoes that detonate when they think they hit something are on a proximity setting, which Trek torpedoes don't seem to use very often. They will likely go off if they are programmed to, but that won't help if they explode where there is no enemy ship.

It actually does make sense; it's called a sensor ghost. Trek has been known to use them to fool sensors before. What it homes in on doesn't matter if the sensor themselves are what is fooled.

As for phasers missing, that also makes sense; they cannot change direction after firing unless you use a strip like the Galaxy's (which should be able to track by moving across the different section of the phaser). They are easy to avoid if you're fast enough, like the Defiant often does.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 9:40 pm

Sensor ghosts will not fool every system.  Especially a system that uses multiple methods to get a target lock.  There should be enough systems on the ship to make sure that there is an accurate lock.  The torpedoes should have just as many systems as the ship firing them.  If one system doesn't work, the other will.  The only way it could miss is by out-maneuvering it until it runs out of fuel.  Which shouldn't take too long if it's turning back around.  Plus, the way those phasers were fired are more like WWI or WWII fighters.  Today's fighter jets are better than that with their machine guns!  Those phasers should have hit!

By the way, with such powerful maneuvering systems on the torpedoes, a small ship wouldn't have engines powerful enough to get out of the way.  Unless it used warp drive.  Something like the galaxy could have powerful enough engines.  Simply because there would be more room to put that power.

It just doesn't make sence to me that with the level of technology, they couldn't put better weapon systems on those vessels.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 9:47 pm

The guy firing the phasers was firing them like it was a WWII fighter.  That's not the technology's fault.  And there's no reason a sensor ghost couldn't fool every system.

Whatever you think should have happened, this actually did happen and it's common in Star Trek.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 9:50 pm

And with that level of tech to target a ship then imagine the system that is designed to fool it. Its the way its always been, you create a sword, i create chain mail. You sharpen your sword, I start wearing steel plate. It way easier to create ECM than it is to create a targeting system, because of the sheer volume of space and energy that the ship would have at its disposal. Whereas the torp has to carry everything with it and its disposable which means whatever resources you spend on it you dont get them back.

Ninjed.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 10:50 pm

This probably originates from the picture that the star ship battles behave like submarine battles. As far as i know thats what Roddenberry hat in mind. I'm completely okay with that. Star Trek is part of Fleet Operations and we try to follow the "Trek Universe" as closely as possible.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 11:43 pm

I guess that's what I get for wanting realism.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 11:47 pm

I guess that's what I get for wanting realism.

Well, no science fiction system is completely "realistic".  If you want true realism, you'd have to eliminate warp-ins, because it's impossible to go faster than light.

posted on October 12th, 2010, 11:47 pm

Aside from the fact that 'realistically' screwing with an enemy military and it's weapons is an existing tactic using similar methods to FO (making the existing ECM realistic), you do realise you're talking about realism in something Star Trek based right?

posted on October 13th, 2010, 12:00 am

Ruanek:
Going faster than light might be possible.  Then again, it might not be possible.  We don't have the technology required to prove light-speed to be possible or impossible.  Until we can actually prove that it's not possible to go faster than light, you can't count the warp-ins unrealistic.

Tyler:
Countermeasures can be countered.  A torpedoes counter measures distort sound, which is what a torpedo uses to identify it's target.  If a torpedo was built that used something else, those countermeasures would be useless.  Same with the ECM.  Modify the torpedo and the ECM is useless.  Create enough backup systems, and most countermeasure systems will be useless.  Other than direct sabotage, most systems used to confuse a weapon or a system can be countered.

posted on October 13th, 2010, 12:02 am

Counter their counters, and they'll counter your counter of their first counter.

posted on October 13th, 2010, 12:20 am

And with that level of tech to target a ship then imagine the system that is designed to fool it. Its the way its always been, you create a sword, i create chain mail. You sharpen your sword, I start wearing steel plate. It way easier to create ECM than it is to create a targeting system, because of the sheer volume of space and energy that the ship would have at its disposal. Whereas the torp has to carry everything with it and its disposable which means whatever resources you spend on it you dont get them back.

Why write my own post when I can just quote one that already exists and is well written?  Thanks, Dircome!

If you're going for some kind of idealistic strict realism, then why would pulse weapons do reduced damage to large vessels?  Why would ships do more damage based on what their range is?  Why don't ships use warp?  Why don't planets have "gravity wells" like in A2?  Why don't the feds always win every game?  Why can't the Borg adapt completely to weapons and become invulnerable to a certain type of weapon after it encounters it?  Why doesn't it take years to build a starship in the game?  Why don't we have to write letters to the families of all the officers we've sent to their deaths?  Why aren't there holodeck accidents every 30 seconds of gameplay, to represent the number of times it's happened to Starfleet crews?  Why is tritanium mined?  Isn't it an alloy?  Why don't ships do splash damage when they explode and destroy all the vessels in the area?  Afterall, any ship that blows up will in effect be creating a warp core breach, with tons of matter and anti matter colliding during the battlefield.  Why don't all ships have tractor beams?  Why don't the crews of ships who have lost life support break out the space suits, breather masks, and shuttles to survive until life support is repaired?

FO isn't designed to be some sort of perfect Starfleet simulator.  It's an RTS that has to have game balance while remaining true to Trek as much as possible.  I've already shown that torpedoes in trek miss.  And as Optec has mentioned, the E-II DOES have guided quantums that are able to zoom in on its target.  So what you're asking for is already there, just not the way you want it.   But the way you want it would open us up to the can of worms for all those other realism questions and arguments.

The reason FO is so popular is that it seeks to be an entertaining game first and foremost.  It then works hard to make sure that it is plausible to Trek in the most important ways while still maintaining game balance.

[Ruanek]

posted on October 13th, 2010, 12:24 am

Last edited by Ruanek on October 13th, 2010, 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ruanek:
Going faster than light might be possible.  Then again, it might not be possible.  We don't have the technology required to prove light-speed to be possible or impossible.  Until we can actually prove that it's not possible to go faster than light, you can't count the warp-ins unrealistic.

Is it even possible to prove that going faster than light is impossible?  According to Einsteinian physics (which is generally accepted by the modern scientific community), though, it is impossible.  But my main point is that this is Star Trek.  There are things here that are unrealistic that are integral parts of the series.  It's not completely out of the question that in 400 years a ship could produce adequate ECM/other countermeasures to confuse torpedo guidance systems, just like you say it's not out of the question that we could eventually go faster than light.

Other than direct sabotage, most systems used to confuse a weapon or a system can be countered.

As Tyler said, your counter to their technology can be countered by them.  It's part of the galactic arms race.  No technology is infallible, anyway.

Ninja'd by Mal.

Why don't we have to write letters to the families of all the officers we've sent to their deaths?

That'd make people stop misusing warpins.

posted on October 13th, 2010, 1:28 am

Well, in a game, it is expected that certain time-consuming tasks be compressed.  Otherwise, it'll take a lifetime just to play one game.  I'm not asking for perfect realism in a game.  And range doesn't determine how much damage is done.  Actually, relative speed between the weapon and the target determines the amount of damage.  And actually, not every ship uses antimatter.  Some ships use quantum-based engines.  Like the Romulans.  Besides, if I wanted a true simulator, I wouldn't play STA2 or Fleet-Ops.  But I much prefer realism over balance.  I don't mind the fact that the ships build faster than they would in real life.  As long as the relative build times are realistic.  I don't want a game to take forever because it takes 5 months to build a scout.

posted on October 13th, 2010, 1:33 am

And range doesn't determine how much damage is done.  Actually, relative speed between the weapon and the target determines the amount of damage.

That's not how it works in FO.  There are currently (of I remember correctly, anyway) a lot of issues with moving formations, so generally ships stay still and shoot each other, and the damage based on range is done to make certain units counter others.