Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://ns2.ditl.org/forum/
That's why I suggested a rolling loop, so no one shield section would take damage for very long. Might not work in a Lakota, but the Defiant could certainly pull it off.Voyager lost their bridge and went fine in year of hell.Fed ships are ridiculously over-centralised. Knocking the bridge out might cripple the ship completely.
I stand corrected, then.Voyager lost their bridge and went fine in year of hell.
I still maintain that it's an excellent opening attack, in the scenario described; even if it's not a coup d'grace, it's a way to sow confusion and disrupt damage control and response to your subsequent attacks. Especially if you are approaching the target bow to bow.Voyager lost their bridge and went fine in year of hell.
Mikey wrote:in the scenario described
I know, I was just carrying a point.Mikey wrote:Mikey wrote:in the scenario described
That's actually evidence of centralisation - all ship's operations pass through the main computer, rather than being decentralised with dedicated computers throughout the ship. Take your Dreadnought example - during the Bismarck's last battle, the ship was badly forwards hit very early on, probably by a pair of 16" shells from HMS Rodney. They knocked out the bridge, the main gunnery control station, and the forward turrets. Despite this the rear gunnery station was able to take over, and had the range of Rodney after only a few salvos before it too was destroyed. Even then, the two after turrets continued to fire under local control until they were knocked out. In a Fed ship, a single hit in the right place can completely disable the ship's weapons, as demonstrated in "Peak Performance".Eosphoros wrote:I have to oppose the notion that Federation ships are too centralized. Federations ships can be controlled from just about any terminal with access to the main computer if you have the appropriate authorization. On the other hand, naval ships of the 20th century were all extremely centralized - they could be controlled only from the bridge. That's why they had the thickest armour around the command tower - one lucky shot and your 30000-tonne dreadnought is useless. There are good examples in SF too: remember that scene from ROTJ when the Executor's bridge is destroyed and it loses attitude control and crashes into DS 2.
1: That's incredibly stupid, as anyone with clearance could sieze the entire ship from just about anywhere.Eosphoros wrote:Federations ships can be controlled from just about any terminal with access to the main computer if you have the appropriate authorization.
Uh, just because the orders come from there, it doesn't mean that if the bridge goes down the ship stops working. Several ships during the second World War were able to continue fighting despite the loss of their bridge, and modern ships are much more decentralised than that.On the other hand, naval ships of the 20th century were all extremely centralized - they could be controlled only from the bridge.
Well, the Executor did have a back-up bridge, the crew were just unable to sieze control in the minute or so they had before they crashed.There are good examples in SF too: remember that scene from ROTJ when the Executor's bridge is destroyed and it loses attitude control and crashes into DS 2.
Or without clearance - Khan, Kevin Finnigan, the MI-5, etc., etc.Rochey wrote:That's incredibly stupid, as anyone with clearance could sieze the entire ship from just about anywhere.