Non energy based anti borg weapons

[mmrajotte]

This problem has been bothering me for awhile. In First Contact, Cpt. Picard turned off the holodeck safety mechanism and lured several Borg in only to fire a Tommy gun which easily penetrated the Borg shields.

How come federation ships aren't outfitted with non energy based projectile weapons in the first place? Load up a few security teams with a few machine guns and mow down Borg like grass on a lawn... problem solved.

Borg cube shields are also designed to protect against antimatter explosions. So.... why not outfit ships with battleship type cannons that fire shells that explode with conventional explosives on impact? A few key shots with a 16in exploding shell such as those fired from Iowa class battleships would do alot of damage. Granted it would take many shots to destroy a Borg cube, but it would cut down the amount of ships needed to defend against them. If these projectiles traveled at a few thousand KPH, they would tear through the cube's hull. It would also save photon and quantum torpedo reserves.

What does everyone think?

[Salvator]

If that was true, then how come the Photon/Quantum Torpedo shell doesn't go through a Borg's shields? does it explode on impact?



sorry for the image quality, that's the only one I could find that lets me post it here

[mmrajotte]

Photon and quantum torpedoes have an energy signature. That energy signature is what a shield can lock onto and at least keep the explosion away from the hull.

[Deks]

Originally Posted by mmrajotte

Photon and quantum torpedoes have an energy signature. That energy signature is what a shield can lock onto and at least keep the explosion away from the hull.

Further more, torpedoes should be able to generate their own low level deflector fields (they are Warp capable after all).
If they operate on a specific frequency (which they do), the Borg can easily adapt to them.

Also, Picard used a new approach (the Tommy gun) against only 2 drones in the holodeck.
But what seriously begs the question here is why the drones personal force-field didn't simply deflect them ?
Answer: It was easier to ignore it and simply state the Borg are exposed to new attacks all the time (which realistically sounds a bit dumb) until they adapt.
I can understand torpedoes and phasers being modifiable to penetrate shielding for example, but not the Tommy gun ... at least, not a real one.
Then again, since those WERE holographic bullets even without safeties, the force-field which looks like a bullet and simulates it's appearance/behavior is energy based and would still operate on a specific frequency (one that might easily penetrate Borg shielding).
But then you also have another problem ... Borg body armor.
I find it dubious a simple Tommy gun would be able to penetrate a 24th century body armor made by a cybernetic alien species which grew to know virtually everything about humanity.
Even Data is immune to mid 21st century projectile based weaponry.

conclusion: the writers messed it up.

[juanxer]

As they always do.

The problem is that all these "energy signatures" and "specific frequencies" are just impromptu technobabble to conveniently produce drama. If one was decently rigorous here, the invading Borg forces in the Enterprise could have been dealt with by using something as simple as the different forcefield equipment aboard with the safeties off: crushed by the inertial dampers or the gravity generators, exploded or sliced or whatever with the fire estinguisher fields or even personal holoemiters, let's not talk about what an angry holodeck could REALLY do to them. The ultimate weapon would be transporters: whatever the interference, the result would be Borg ST:TMP transporter discodancing-level puree.

It's idiotic: you have a controlled environment such as a starship, and Borgs roaming around doing not much to your men because they are keeping their distance and not interfering that much? OK: lock onto the Borg with passive sensors, tricorders, whatever, and just kill them ALL AT ONCE via the means mentioned above. No "time to adapt" sillyness.

[spudmonkey]

Yes, but you see, it's supposed to be entertainment and not taken this seriously. If the main enemy was killed so simply then it wouldn't make for entertaining viewing...

[Deks]

It stops being entertainment for some of those who like a dose of intelligence in their scifi movies/series.
It's not about taking it seriously, but making some measure of sense.
The writers relied too much on 'human stupidity' in order to get away with numerous errors they did.
Plus one of the most saddest facts is that they avoided showing a same class of ship more than once because it was previously a hero ship and thought that people would get ... confused.


Almost every Trek show was better in it's initial seasons instead of later on.
In the later seasons, the writers focused less and less on intelligence aspects and began to dumb everything down.
The best example of this is DS9 (at least from my perspective).
The humans behaved essentially like their early 21st century counterparts on that show with much less emphasis on the 'we are better than contemporary humans'.
No one is perfect, neither were the 24th century humans, but it was nice to see them resolving issues without spouting contemporary insults/swearing, reaching for a weapon and losing temper like cavemen.
I cringe almost every time as I see the characters slowly devolving in their behavior.

[spudmonkey]

Originally Posted by Deks

It stops being entertainment for some of those who like a dose of intelligence in their scifi movies/series.

I wouldn't count any of the major franchises as being intelligent sci-fi for the most part as they are designed for a broader appeal and so play fast and loose. In fact, ST:TMP was panned for being too serious and attempting to be too intelligent, so that really goes against your argument there mate. Also, over analysing and nit-picking doesn't really count as seeking a dose of intellegence, in fact it points to the idea that the programme isn't actually as intelligent as you had hoped it would be because, to your mind, the programme keeps making these simplistic mistakes. That's not to say the show isn't entertaining or doesn't have any moments where there is an intelligent sci-fi slant to the proceedings, but arguments like this thread simply show that for the most part the science is trash and the intelligence is left behind in favour of telling a story to gain a bigger audience and to gain a higher revenue from advertisers

[Deks]

I don't have an issue with most Trek movies since numerous stuff is explainable ...
The problem lies in the fact that the writers tend to ignore from time to time (more often actually) established science/technology/capability.
That's one of the most problematic aspects in terms that the intelligence is lacking.
It is so hard to adapt the story so there is no need to dumb things down?
Not from my experience.
I'm writing a scifi novel myself and the established technological aspects for example are not dumbed down, nor does the story suffer as a result.

Maybe one of the issues the writers had is the time constraint ... but some of the stories that had to dumb things down for the sake of drama were one of the poorest ones in my opinion.
Hence why I didn't enjoy DS9 that much.
I find it entertaining enough for example, but not really something I like on the level of other shows.

As for nitpicking ... well, it's fun to poke holes into ones favorite movie or show.
For one thing it makes you aware it has flaws and is not perfect.
Plus if you have creative desire to do your own art for example in the form of writing, at the very least you know what to avoid and how to think things through.

[juanxer]

Originally Posted by spudmonkey

Yes, but you see, it's supposed to be entertainment and not taken this seriously. If the main enemy was killed so simply then it wouldn't make for entertaining viewing...

Yeah, I know My problem is that Star Trek has never been too impressive when trying to do ground or in-ship combat. Phasers are dramatically nice for small scale things a la Space:1999's stun guns, but shoot-outs as shown in First Contact or Nemesis just look boring and unimaginative, combat-wise (I never understood why ST:FC is so well regarded as an action film. My guess is Frakes made it look far better than it really is).

Oh well, I know what the usual trappings are. One only can wish for writers to try harder sometime (I wonder if Abrams' Trek will bring some surprise, any surprise there).

Originally Posted by spudmonkey

ST:TMP was panned for being too serious and attempting to be too intelligent, so that really goes against your argument there mate.

I'd say its sin was being a rather boring WWII Navy commanders psychological conflict kind of movie instead of the idea of Trek most people kept in their memories (mind you, I like ST:TMP above all the rest, including Wrath of Khan, but one admits the movie was deeply flawed, cinematically speaking). I think the public is able to embrace some sophistication as long as it's well directed and presented. Say, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Twelve Monkeys, The Andromeda Strain (the original one), Jurassic Park, CE3K, The Prestige… I don't know: they offered fun and some food for thought at once.


(Curiously, I fault TNG movies most for dumbing the characters down relative to the TV series, Data's Schwarzenneggerian oneliners and Worf's comic relief included. I can accept bad tech, but not that)