Prev: Re: TEST - please ignore. Next: Re: TEST - please ignore.

RE: [FT] Idle Trek thoughts

From: "Matt Tope" <mptope@o...>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:06:35 +0100
Subject: RE: [FT] Idle Trek thoughts

A major problem with Trek, as no doubt you are all aware, is the lack of
real consistency in the way shields operate, the damage they can absorb.
This coupled with inconsistency in the way weapons work also causes
problems. My approach is based on the "gut feeling" I get from watching
space combats from the first 6 movies, and from the Klingon and Dominion
Wars from DS9. I ignore all other evidence in a vain attempt to preserve
already fractured sanity.

Anyway, getting to the point, I have found that using screens and hull
damage in the normal FT way works best, that is if one imagines that the
screen generators represent the deflector element of shields, and the
damage represents a vessels hull integrity reinforced by the shields
absorbtion ability.

A good example of the though processes behind this approach is the
engagement between the 1701-A and General Changs Boyd of Prey (sorry, I
automatically have to pronounce that in a Chicago gangsters accent). In
beginning of that action the Boyd of Preys torpedoes cause damage each
they hit the Enterprise, but only mild surface damage is vibily scored
its hull (though inside you have panels and power couplings blowing out
the impacts). This stage I liken to the first two rows of damage being
eroded, with thresholds occurring but not to serious-yet.

The 5th (?) torp then hits and brings down one of the enterprises
the following torp then blows a hole clear through the saucer section
(in FT
terms a third threshold hit, screen gens collapse(either hit then or
lost on
the second threshold).

Again in the DS9 battles, a vessels shields can still be up, but
damage is still occurring, eg; any engagement as seen from the bridge of

To reitterate my approach, hull damage and shields represent different
facets of the same thing, once shields are gone, so to is the vessel, as
ST battles.


Matt Tope

Prev: Re: TEST - please ignore. Next: Re: TEST - please ignore.