| Subject: Re: Romulan - Imperial scenarios |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:43:01 11/09/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: ipd54b193f.free.wxs.nl/213.75.25.63
In reply to:
capn hayes
's message, "Re: Romulan - Imperial scenarios" on 14:57:22 11/09/02 Sat
>>>All of your points can go both ways and be turned
>>>around on you. can you prove that Han just wasn't
>>>firing from point blank range since he was firing
>from
>>>the cockpit of the falcon and we know how
>maneuverable
>>>TIE's are supposed to be, perhaps when he said
>"almost
>>>in range" he was refering to optimum range for firing
>>>from the cockpit repeater controls at a fast,
>>>maneuverable TIE fighter.
>>
>>The TIE was flying in a straight line towards the DS.
>>Ben said "It's best to let it go, its already too far
>>out of range." Han said " I think I can get him before
>>he gets there, he's almost in range". All the evidence
>>points to the fact that the TIE was out of range, not
>>just out of optimal range, and arguing otherwise is
>>pretty desperate.
>Why do you think it is desperate? I don't.
I apologise if you took offense to that, it wasn't intended as an insult.
>Since we
>know TIE's are maneuverable enough to avoid targeting
>locks
The TIE in the example I am talking about wasn't manouvering at all. It was flying a straight line, with the Falcon directly behind it and closing. Both Han and Ben state it was out of range, even though it was clearly visable from the cockpit. They don't say it wasn't in optimal range, they say it was OUT of range.
>as seen later in the film when they are fleeing
>the DS it does make sense that being optimum firing
>range to ensure a hit would be important. Ben's
>comment only backs up the point.
I am not refering to that example. I am refering to the example when they first arrive in the Aldaran system.
>Despreate indeed.
>TIE's are maneuverable enough to avoid weapons locks
>at even short range, and the fire control on the
>Falcon's quadlasers isn't as good as from the gunports
>themselves. Now if they had problems hitting TIE's
>from the gunports, it stands to reason that if the TIE
>was fired upon and Solo missed it could have turned
>and entered into a dog fight with the Falcon. A fact
>that Han was very aware of.
Which would have been better, since they were trying to stop it escaping. The point was they didn't want it to tell anyone about them (they were jamming it's comms), so making it come back to them would have been exactly what they wanted. They were worried it would escape to the small moon ahead of them.
>This is what I obviously didn't
>explain earlier in a clear enough manner. Sorry for
>sounding desperate:)
As I said, no offense intended.
>>
>>>I won't crack on the
>>>Enterprise's really impressive looking
>maneuverability
>>>from TOS if you don't crack on TIE's from ANH!
>>
>>Where did this come from? I said nothing about the
>>TIEs manouverability. Actually I don't think its too
>>bad.
>
>This was in reference to earlier wisecracking trekling
>comments about how TIE's seem to maneuver no better
>than WW I SPAD's.
No, you've got that wrong, go back and read the thread. The SPAD comment was not about the manouverability of the TIE fighter at all.
>Considering most scenes with the
>Enterprise in them shows the ship maneuvering with all
>the grace and speed of a German zepplin. I know that
>just because the ships look like they can't maneuver
>worth crap in some of the older shows and films
>doesn't really mean that. I sure you do too, but there
>are some treklings that would try to say how poor
>TIE's maneuver, because the films they're watching
>were made before they were born, and they don't
>apreciate how difficult it was to film effects shots
>of TIE's or the Enterprise using motion control
>technology of the day. I mention this because visual
>effects shots and dialog don't always match up quite
>right. Star Wars is no better than Star Trek as far as
>this goes. I will mention a scene from ST:II TWOK to
>further explain myself, as not seem desperate to
>anyone. In that scene we are shown the Enterprise
>fleeing from the Relient adrift dead in space. Khan
>has inconveinently activated the "Genisis Device" and
>kill everyone, because he's a crybaby and can't take
>defeat well. Anyway in one scene on the bridge Kirk
>asks what their distance from Reliant is. Chekov says
>4000 kilometers. In the very next shot of the the
>Enterprise fleeing we can also see in the distant
>background with the naked eye thr Reliant! Yes thats
>right even though the two ships are suppossed to be
>2500 miles apart and are only slightly bigger than a
>modern aircraft carrier. We are able to see them
>together in the same shot. My reason for mentioning
>this is because if Star Trek can screw up range then
>why can't Star Wars be afforded the same luxury!
>>
Then it would have to work both ways. Trek ranges are generally stated to be in millions of km, but warsies will always tell you they fight at 10km. This does work both ways. If by the visuals Trek generally fights at 10km, then by the visuals, the MF was out of range at around 1km. If you want to ignore the visuals, I guess you'll have to get everyone to agree to that.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 