Here's the thing about torpedo yields, or any explosion in space for that matter...60 megatons in a vacuum doesn't equate to 60 megatons in a relatively "thick" atmosphere, in terms of destructive effect. The main reason for this is that energy does not propagate nearly as well in a vacuum. There aren't many particles to excite, and no atmosphere in which to generate an overpressure wave (which accounts for much of the destruction in, say, a nuclear blast). Basically what you get is a bunch of hard radiation...in the case of an antimatter explosion, that's gamma-rays, neutrons, neutrinos, and muons (which usually break down into electrons and more neutrinos, believe it or not). You'll get thermal radiation emissions from the incredibly hot ball of plasma the warhead becomes when it detonates, but more than half of the particles (half of the energetic release) thrown out by the detonation will be neutrinos. Problem with that is, neutrinos don't really interact with normal matter in any significant way (you heard me, Mr. Roland Emmerich...just shut your cakehole).
So what you're left with is 40-45% of the harmful stuff shooting away from the point of detonation, linearly. And again, there's no atmosphere in which that energy can propagate through matter (air molecules, etc.), and a lot of the radiation isn't visible to the naked eye. Furthermore, in the vacuum of space, the detonating material expands so quickly that the major visible portion of the explosion would be over and done in a fraction of a second. Maybe a flash of intense blue light, like lightning or a bulb on one of those old-style cameras, but that's all. You wouldn't have a fireball or anything like that unless you were mucking around in a Jovian atmosphere...or perhaps a nebula with the right density and composition.
In space, a big boom by our terrestrial standards is not so big a boom after all. Granted, in this context, that boom is directly impacting a ship's hull or energy shields. You'd have contact transference, and that can do a lot of damage (especially if the warhead is designed with some kind of tamper that channels the energy in one direction...like a shaped charge on conventional explosives). But a starship won't take any real area-of-effect or "splash" damage from a torpedo in space unless it's very, very close...maybe forty kilometers or so (assuming the yield is about 60 megatons). And that range is akin to
almost touching noses, as far as space combat is concerned. Typical engagements are going to be at thousands or tens of thousands of kilometers, minimum. Space is vast.
One thing I've always scratched my head at with Trek is the whole concept of ships not (frequently) using ECM or point-defense systems to shoot down enemy torpedoes/missiles. It really makes a lot of sense. You don't want one of those things hitting you, especially if your shields are down. And since most of the uses of torpedoes we've seen in the shows have been at sublight speeds anyway (if they were being fired at FTL velocity instead of using "warp sustainer" systems while the
ship was at warp, we wouldn't be able to see 'em leave the tubes), you'd think there would be more practical, aggressive, and
active anti-"vampire" systems in place. And don't give me that whole, "Well, it's really hard to hit them in flight" argument, because it's crap. I find it hard to believe you can build a super-accurate guidance system for a torpdeo, but not a countermeasure for it. Especially given that energy weapons with pinpoint accuracy are a dime a dozen in the Trekverse. They make perfect point-defense systems, by definition.
Whatever. It's a television show. Rest assured,
Excalibur won't take any of my spotty real-world physics into account. It's a game, and games are supposed to be fun. That means big, familiar explosions and sound effects and the whole wonderful mess.
~Josh F.
