However.
In the Mikeyverse:
*NOBODY likes the damned things.
*They are used more for urgent convenience/emergency and speed than routine transport.
Please discuss.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Mike
Not liking the things isMikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:40 am ...Here's the thing: I am kind of among the school that considers the transporter something of a deus ex machina. I absolutely understand and accept the reasons the original writers came up with it, and as it's canon it's going to be there.
However.
In the Mikeyverse:
*NOBODY likes the damned things.
*They are used more for urgent convenience/emergency and speed than routine transport.
Please discuss.
Mike
What annoyed me most about Picard is that it has laid out some great premises and not followed through.Rafferty wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 3:15 am I did find the planetside transporters interesting in Picard, one of it's few good ideas. That would make travel around the planet quick and easy. If there ever is follow-on from Picard (let's hope not), there should be some fallout from the transporters/Borg issue. If anything, that should make transporters relegated to cargo only for a long time.
To add…MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:40 am ...Here's the thing: I am kind of among the school that considers the transporter something of a deus ex machina. I absolutely understand and accept the reasons the original writers came up with it, and as it's canon it's going to be there.
However.
In the Mikeyverse:
*NOBODY likes the damned things.
*They are used more for urgent convenience/emergency and speed than routine transport.
Please discuss.
Mike
Add to that the range and LOS limitations. A starship may not be able to maintain an orbit within transporter range and LOS of a landing party. Especially if it’s a situation where they must contend with enemy starship(s), which renders the transporters unusable until you have space supremacy.Craiglxviii wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:25 pmTo add…MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:40 am ...Here's the thing: I am kind of among the school that considers the transporter something of a deus ex machina. I absolutely understand and accept the reasons the original writers came up with it, and as it's canon it's going to be there.
However.
In the Mikeyverse:
*NOBODY likes the damned things.
*They are used more for urgent convenience/emergency and speed than routine transport.
Please discuss.
Mike
Transporter bombs.
Transporter artillery for marine ground operations.
I’m pretty close with you on this; I liked ST: ENT’s use of shuttles for the practicality argument, but if we’re talking tactical usage, let’s go straight to SFB for a second.
One transporter operation can move one crew unit per turn using one unit of power. A Constitution has 3 transporters thus can move 3 crew units in one turn using 3 units of power.
In real terms, that’s 3 Marine landing parties of 6 rifles, beaming aboard and using 8% of total ship’s power to do so. Clearly there are valid tactical reasons for wanting to do this.
However. The same ship carries 4 size-1 shuttles, each capable of landing the same-sized boarding party AND deploying a point-defence phaser AND distracting enemy fire, and not requiring active own-ship scanners and sensors and a valid target lock in order to do so. Significantly greater tactical flexibility especially as they can hide in nearby terrain/ in planetary shadow of the target.
Right. Just that. I seem to recall (in-game as The Mikeyverse is partly based on SFB) that transporters had a 100,000km range. They also needed fully operable scanners (fire control) and a target lock. Scanners could be damaged through enemy fire (or indeed boarding hit-and-run raids, Klingon ships had extra transporters for this very reason). Said target lock could be defeated by valid ECM; in-game that could be supplied by an enemy ship, shuttle, drone or astro-navigation hazard (pulsar, gravitational waves) or terrain masking (as you say, LOS).Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:40 pmAdd to that the range and LOS limitations. A starship may not be able to maintain an orbit within transporter range and LOS of a landing party. Especially if it’s a situation where they must contend with enemy starship(s), which renders the transporters unusable until you have space supremacy.Craiglxviii wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:25 pmTo add…MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 1:40 am ...Here's the thing: I am kind of among the school that considers the transporter something of a deus ex machina. I absolutely understand and accept the reasons the original writers came up with it, and as it's canon it's going to be there.
However.
In the Mikeyverse:
*NOBODY likes the damned things.
*They are used more for urgent convenience/emergency and speed than routine transport.
Please discuss.
Mike
Transporter bombs.
Transporter artillery for marine ground operations.
I’m pretty close with you on this; I liked ST: ENT’s use of shuttles for the practicality argument, but if we’re talking tactical usage, let’s go straight to SFB for a second.
One transporter operation can move one crew unit per turn using one unit of power. A Constitution has 3 transporters thus can move 3 crew units in one turn using 3 units of power.
In real terms, that’s 3 Marine landing parties of 6 rifles, beaming aboard and using 8% of total ship’s power to do so. Clearly there are valid tactical reasons for wanting to do this.
However. The same ship carries 4 size-1 shuttles, each capable of landing the same-sized boarding party AND deploying a point-defence phaser AND distracting enemy fire, and not requiring active own-ship scanners and sensors and a valid target lock in order to do so. Significantly greater tactical flexibility especially as they can hide in nearby terrain/ in planetary shadow of the target.
The Abramsverse Scotty reads this and laughsJames1978 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:49 am TNG/DS9 => Picard wrinkle re. transporters. Regular/standard transporters have pretty clear range limitations, but from DS9 we've seen that at least some Dominion transporters are significantly more capable range wise, and presumably Section 31 ones as well.