Star Trek vs Star Wars

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I think its a show about Dinosaurs... from out of town?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjhJSD8RU4k

Oh, Stars, that was bad... Just... bad... Don't... just don't ever do that again, please...

Then this whole argument is irrelevant. If Starfleet ships generate and can throw out more power then the SW ships, then the Empire would be nuts to go to war.

The purpose of the thread is for intelligent debate and discussion, and to have fun with that. Not everyone agrees with those figures (as evidenced above), and it is the chance for debate, discussion and analysis (which I find to be very entertaining) that this thread was created.


The Star Destroyer actually DID Vaporize asteroids. And a good portion of asteroids in our solar system are composed of Nickel iron. Metallic asteroids are much more common within an asteroid belt (where the ISD's were present). Also, the ISD's used small point-defense lasers when engaging the asteroid field (The anti-fighter weapons), so Large Turbolasers can be expected to be much more powerful. And as has been seen in NEO reports to congress, a 50 megaton Nuclear warhead still wouldnt destroy or even shatter a metallic asteroid even if it was only around 50-100 meters. Throughout ESB, the ISD's which are several kilometers in length vaporize asteroids clearly ranging from 50-150 meters when comapred to the diameter of the star destroyer itself.

and here's a quick GIF of Asteroids vaproized (http://www.mrpoesmorgue.com/usvsd/wmd/roidsequence2jl.gif)

I'm pulling up the NEO reports now to look through, so we'll come back to that later.

However, the size you give for the TESB asteroid is greatly overstated, just as the size you give for the ISD firing on it. The ISD is generally accepted to be 1600 meters in length, not several kilometers as you claim, and an analysis I am working on suggests that it may actually be closer to 1200 kilometers (the same length as the D'Deridex class warbird), though that analysis is far from complete. Additionally, the asteroids popped are much less than 50-100 meters, and are in the range of 3-15 meters in diameter.

See this page: http://st-v-sw.net/STSWaster.html for a more in-depth analysis of the TESB asteroid popping sequence.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

thats a complete assumption.


TNG Season 2, Ep# 36: "The Dauphin"

DATA: Sir, sensors indicate the communication originated from a terawatt source on the planet.

RIKER: That's more power than our entire ship can generate.

DATA: It is what is needed to penetrate the atmosphere.

RIKER: Which means we lack the ability to respond...

thats not peta or exa thats tera .

( stardestroyer.net may be defermary. but they have good points)

also i have not seen anywhere wher eit states that SW is limited to mega and giga ..


SDN also pads their stats in their favor, and tends to pick the weaker points from Trek while ignoring the stronger ones. There were multiple references to multi-terawatt range and greater power usage through Trek, including TNG, such as B'Elanna needing at least another 5 terawatts for the sensor array in VOY "Good Sheppard", 5 million Gigawatts (5,000 Terawatts) running through one of Voyager's EPS conduits in VOY "Revulsion", Geordi's comment in TNG "The Masterpiece Society" that the Galaxy's reactor "kicks plasma up into the terawatt range", Data's comment in TNG "True Q" about the Galaxy's warp reactor, while at an in-orbit idle, generating 12.75 billion gigawatts (12.75 Exawatts) per something before he is cut off by Q's appearance (the script says seconds, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that a Watt is a Joule per second, but that's what it says), the fact that they use plasma generated directly from matter/anti-matter reactions to power their systems, which would easily be able to generate terawatt-range power outputs, the fact that their shields can withstand multiple matter/anti-matter warhead explosions in the several hundred megaton to multiple gigaton range, and that their energy weapons put out a comparable amount of energy, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, the quote from "The Dauphin" states that the entire Galaxy class starship is incapable of generating more energy than what is released in the detonation of one quarter of a kiloton of energy. That is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as SDN's insistence that the Galaxy class starship's big dorsal array has 200 emitters each capable of putting out 5.1 MegaWatts, for a total output of 1.02 Gigawatts (aka "The 1.02 Gigawatt Fallacy"). That is ridiculous because the decades-old, coal-fired steam turbine powerplant up the road from my parents' house puts out over 600,000 Kilowatts, or 600 Megawatts, making it capable of powering over half the Galaxy's main dorsal array. Obviously, that is ridiculous, considering those same arrays draw their power directly from a matter/anti-matter reactor, and put out yields comparable to a several hundred megaton+ matter/anti-matter warhead, something even the most advanced coal-fired steam turbine power plant could never hope to achieve.

[Zyrious]

Oh, Stars, that was bad... Just... bad... Don't... just don't ever do that again, please...



The purpose of the thread is for intelligent debate and discussion, and to have fun with that. Not everyone agrees with those figures (as evidenced above), and it is the chance for debate, discussion and analysis (which I find to be very entertaining) that this thread was created.




I'm pulling up the NEO reports now to look through, so we'll come back to that later.

However, the size you give for the TESB asteroid is greatly overstated, just as the size you give for the ISD firing on it. The ISD is generally accepted to be 1600 meters in length, not several kilometers as you claim, and an analysis I am working on suggests that it may actually be closer to 1200 kilometers (the same length as the D'Deridex class warbird), though that analysis is far from complete. Additionally, the asteroids popped are much less than 50-100 meters, and are in the range of 3-15 meters in diameter.

See this page: http://st-v-sw.net/STSWaster.html for a more in-depth analysis of the TESB asteroid popping sequence.

Let's approach this from another angle. The Millenium falcon is 26.7 meters long. So we can use the Millienium falcon and compare to asteroids seen near the ISD to get an estimate on their size.

Here are 2 pictures:
Falcon 2 (http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/bigflcblt2.jpg)
Falcon 3 (http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/bigfalcblt.jpg)

It may take your eyes a second to adjust, but as you can clearly see in both pictures, with the millenium falcon near asteroids the same size as the one blasted by the star destroyer in the previous GIF. You can clearly see they are atleast the size of the falcon, and a bit larger. A conservative estimate would be around 35+ meters, and those Asteroids are still a bit in the distance.

Also, in other scenes you can witness these asteroids in comparison to the SSD Executor, which is 19km, and some still come off on the rather large side, much larger than 50 meters. I am still working on finding pictures. If i had my DVD's i'd just rip them from there. But these pictures should still illustrate the point.

[Zyrious]

I'd just like to point out that one of the reasons it's hard to argue with Star Trek Statistics is a lot tend to come as a result of technobabble, which tends to be inconsistent as the writers do not take note, and do not care to take note, of what the characters say. They tend to throw out rediculously large numbers. and sometimes rediculously low number, at times just to help that "Sci-Fi"ish feel of the show. Where as all evidence for star wars comes from visual analysis and the occassional technicle manual.

IMO, ironicly enough, i feel that Wars is more grounded in reality than Star Trek. Now hear me out. Star Wars doesnt have any real technobabble, so they arent constantly throwing out a bunch of rediculous numbers or anything. Instead, they rely on visual analysis for you to get those kinds of numbers, which can tend to more accurate results. Even with Lightsabers and Deathstars, besides some of the environments nothing tends to get too over the top imo. (Lightsabers maybe, but even a Deathstar seems realistic. Humans have a fetish with WMD's).

Now dont get me wrong, i have a love for both. I am not a Trekkie, i am not a "Warsy". I love both, i go to fan-faires of both. I have the DVD sets of both :P (The Trek sets far more expensive, btw). It's just that Trek relies heavily on technobabble and fantasticle solutions. Instead of getting out of a situation with what they have, they are constantly "Changing Frequences" or "Remodulating the remodulator" to alter their tech in some way to beat their situation. This is fine for television and fun to watch what they come up with, but it lends itself to inconsistencies and a situation where it gets to the point where if you think hard enough, a starfleet vessel can pretty much do anything. They can destroy the universe and revive elvis if they remodulate long enough.

So, while i enjoy making arguments when it comes to comparable technologies (Weapons and Such) in the End, i dont think Star Wars can ever truly win against a Series based in Technobabble. Now if we went off a purely logical basis and Visual Analysis and tossed aside all technobabble, maybe things would change (But even then, how strong a torpedo is seems to change based on the situation). However, i think i will always lean towards the side of a civiliation that has had 15,000 years of war and Research and Development over a civilization with 300 years worth. And a pacifistic civilization at that.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Let's approach this from another angle. The Millenium falcon is 26.7 meters long. So we can use the Millienium falcon and compare to asteroids seen near the ISD to get an estimate on their size.

Here are 2 pictures:
Falcon 2 (http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/bigflcblt2.jpg)
Falcon 3 (http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/bigfalcblt.jpg)

It may take your eyes a second to adjust, but as you can clearly see in both pictures, with the millenium falcon near asteroids the same size as the one blasted by the star destroyer in the previous GIF. You can clearly see they are atleast the size of the falcon, and a bit larger. A conservative estimate would be around 35+ meters, and those Asteroids are still a bit in the distance.

Also, in other scenes you can witness these asteroids in comparison to the SSD Executor, which is 19km, and some still come off on the rather large side, much larger than 50 meters. I am still working on finding pictures. If i had my DVD's i'd just rip them from there. But these pictures should still illustrate the point.

Your links aren't working for some reason...


As for the size of the asteroids, they're much closer to the camera than the Falcon; just compare the size and angle of the bolts that hit the asteroids to the ones that are fired at the Falcon for a quick, rough example. Also, take a look at the page I linked to above, that analyzes the asteroid popping scene, for a more in-depth analysis of the asteroid size.

Yes, some of them were pretty big, but others were pretty small; there were rocks of all sizes in that asteroid field.

[JadeEngima]

I just got all weak in the knees!

*swoons*

[spartan547]

However, i think i will always lean towards the side of a civiliation that has had 15,000 years of war and Research and Development over a civilization with 300 years worth. And a pacifistic civilization at that.

I agree. The Star Wars galaxy is built on war, the Star Trek galaxy or at least the Federation is built on peace. People love to forget that when this argument comes up. The Federation is not in the business of expansive conquest, destroying an opposing religion, fighting off extra galactic invaders or defending themselves from such things, the factions in the Star Wars galaxy are. Since the Jedi have been doing this "for over 1000 generations" I would say that Star Wars has a much higher technology level than a pacifistic civilization that has existed for 300 years. Sure this is conjecture, but you don't see the Federation building Death Stars whereas the Empire sees this as such a useful instrument of war that they built two in as many decades.

[ranagrande]

This is always a fun argument.

Contrary to many posters, I would give the edge in space combat to the Empire. It has been demonstrated numerous times throughout the various series that Star Trek ships are vulnerable to attack by numerous smaller vessels. It wouldn't be easy, but a good Imperial fighter strike should be able to take down most federation ships. A star destroyer typically carries a wing of 72 starfighters. TIE pilots should be able to dodge phaser fire and coordinate a surgical strike, to focus fire on specific areas to punch through the shield, preferably areas over critical components such as the warp core. It would take a very long time, but as anyone who has ever played the X-Wing or TIE Fighter games knows, the strategy works well. The problem is that while the fighters are blasting away, the Federation ship could likely dispose of the star destroyer with relative ease. Note that this tactic would not work against true combat ships such as the Defiant.

Also note that this tactic would not work if the Empire uses unshielded TIEs, its most common fighters. In that situation, the crew of the Starfleet ship could just beam the TIE pilots to the brig. This is one of relatively few cases where the transporter technology really makes a difference. Shields block transportation, and in most cases, if the enemy's shields are down, the battle is almost over anyway.

The Force could make an impact, but not so much as many people seem to think. If we are only going by "pure" canon, there are only likely to be two force users with the Empire, and there are a number of entities possessing comparable power in Star Trek. Kes is pretty much a Jedi by the time she leaves Voyager. Even limiting it solely to the Empire vs Starfleet, Wesley Crusher's (:rolleyes:) command of spacetime should be enough to compensate.

Unfortunately, it can never be a fair fight. I think Starfleet and the Federation would likely defeat the Empire anyway, although I think it would be a much more serious war than some seem to think. However, in the event that Starfleet actually was going to lose, they would instead win by Deus ex Machina. Because we know that Starfleet has to exist for at least another four hundred years, on the eve of Imperial victory, Federation timeships would arrive to lay down a 29th century beatdown. I hate time travel.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I agree. The Star Wars galaxy is built on war

No it wasn't. Prior to the Clone Wars, the Galaxy hadn't known war since the founding of the Republic. Additionally, comments in the canon indicate that the Republic is only about a thousand years or so old around the time of the saga of Anakin Skywalker.

The Federation was founded by an alliance of powers that had just won a major interstellar war (relatively speaking) over two hundred years prior, underwent a prolonged high-stakes cold war with the Klingon Empire for over eighty years in the 23rd Century, fought significant conflicts with the Tzenkethi and the Cardassians in the mid-24th Century, and fought a Total War against the Dominion in the mid 2370s (plus the Borg incursions and any other conflicts and wars the Federation may have been involved in over the past two and a half centuries). The Federation is not exactly inexperienced at war, not now.

The Empire, however, has only the experience of the Clone Wars, some 20+ years prior, and the suppression of rebellious internal factions within the past 20 years, to draw on for the last thousand years. The Empire has very little experience in fighting an actual open war with another power (the closest they have is the civil war with the Separatists, and that whole mess was completely orchestrated by Palpatine, so the actual applicable experience is questionable).


@ranagrande: Search YouTube for TNG "Conundrum", and watch the Enterprise's fighter-blasting scene. Fighters as poorly maneuverable as Imperial TIEs, even the advanced models, would be wiped out easily, transporters and shields or no.

[Zyrious]

No it wasn't. Prior to the Clone Wars, the Galaxy hadn't known war since the founding of the Republic. Additionally, comments in the canon indicate that the Republic is only about a thousand years or so old around the time of the saga of Anakin Skywalker.

The Federation was founded by an alliance of powers that had just won a major interstellar war (relatively speaking) over two hundred years prior, underwent a prolonged high-stakes cold war with the Klingon Empire for over eighty years in the 23rd Century, fought significant conflicts with the Tzenkethi and the Cardassians in the mid-24th Century, and fought a Total War against the Dominion in the mid 2370s (plus the Borg incursions and any other conflicts and wars the Federation may have been involved in over the past two and a half centuries). The Federation is not exactly inexperienced at war, not now.

The Empire, however, has only the experience of the Clone Wars, some 20+ years prior, and the suppression of rebellious internal factions within the past 20 years, to draw on for the last thousand years. The Empire has very little experience in fighting an actual open war with another power (the closest they have is the civil war with the Separatists, and that whole mess was completely orchestrated by Palpatine, so the actual applicable experience is questionable).


@ranagrande: Search YouTube for TNG "Conundrum", and watch the Enterprise's fighter-blasting scene. Fighters as poorly maneuverable as Imperial TIEs, even the advanced models, would be wiped out easily, transporters and shields or no.

Um, not built on war? You obviously arent much of a Wars fan are you? Here's a quick rundown:;
Pre-Republic era conflicts
Rakatan Civil War (30,000–25,200 BBY)
Hutt-Xim conflict (25,105–25,100 BBY)
Force Wars (25,100–25,000 BBY)
Unification Wars c.(25,000 BBY)

Old Republic era
First Great Schism (24,500 BBY)
Tionese War (24,000 BBY)
Duinuogwuin Contention c.(15,500 BBY)
Pius Dea Crusades (12,000–11,000 BBY)
Hundred-Year Darkness (also known as the Second Great Schism) (7,000–6,900 BBY)
Great Hyperspace War (5,000 BBY)
Old Sith Wars (4,015–3,951 BBY)
Great Droid Revolution (4,015 BBY)
Great Sith War (4,000–3,996 BBY)
Mandalorian Wars (3,976–3,960 BBY)
Jedi Civil War (3,959–3,956 BBY)
First Sith Civil War (3,956–3,955 BBY)
First Jedi Purge (3,955–3,951 BBY)
Second Sith Civil War (3,951 BBY)
New Sith Wars c.(2,000–1,000 BBY)

Rise of the Empire era
Mandalorian Civil War (60–34 BBY)
Stark Hyperspace War (44 BBY)
Yinchorri Uprising (32 BBY)
Invasion of Naboo (32 BBY)
Separatist Crisis (24–22 BBY)
Clone Wars (22–19 BBY)
Great Jedi Purge (19–1 BBY)
Galactic Civil War (2 BBY–19 ABY)

Rebellion era
Galactic Civil War (continued)
Nagai-Tof War (4 ABY)

New Republic era
Galactic Civil War (continued)
Imperial Civil War (4–12 ABY)
Black Fleet Crisis (16 ABY)
Almanian Uprising (17 ABY)
First Corellian Insurrection (18 ABY)
Second Imperium Crisis (23 ABY)

These are only the Major conflicts and the list still goes on. There are several sources on the net where you can get a huge comprehensive list with details.

Also, the Imeprial Military was still founded upon tech, strategies, and training developed throughout the Repbulic's History. So the Republic's background in war is Vital. Because the Empire IS the republic, just a change in the federal government (And a larger standing military).

Be aware, most EU is considered canon by fans unless otherwise changed/contradicted by a new Lucas production. It even has to get the official Lucas Seal of Approval to get published (Lucas has even made some demands to authors over the years, and had characters killed off that he didnt like).

[ranagrande]

@ranagrande: Search YouTube for TNG "Conundrum", and watch the Enterprise's fighter-blasting scene. Fighters as poorly maneuverable as Imperial TIEs, even the advanced models, would be wiped out easily, transporters and shields or no.
It stands to reason that the Federation's flagship would put up a good fight, but I doubt that most of Starfleet would be as able. For instance, look at how much damage Voyager takes from the fighters in "Dragon's Teeth". I think you underestimate the TIEs. They can dodge lasers and turbolasers, and phasers do not appear to be any faster. In any event, the situation still favors the Imperial numbers game. They might lose entire squadrons of fighters, but they can still get the job done.

[Zyrious]

It stands to reason that the Federation's flagship would put up a good fight, but I doubt that most of Starfleet would be as able. For instance, look at how much damage Voyager takes from the fighters in "Dragon's Teeth". I think you underestimate the TIEs. They can dodge lasers and turbolasers, and phasers do not appear to be any faster. In any event, the situation still favors the Imperial numbers game. They might lose entire squadrons of fighters, but they can still get the job done.

Also, he is somewhat innaccurate in stating that imperial fighters are poorly manuverable. They are actually the most manuverable and fastest fighters available, far beating the rebel equivelants in speed and turning rates. With Exception to the rebel A-Wing, of course, which was built to match the Interceptor.

[Lendosan]

Also, he is somewhat innaccurate in stating that imperial fighters are poorly manuverable. They are actually the most manuverable and fastest fighters available, far beating the rebel equivelants in speed and turning rates. With Exception to the rebel A-Wing, of course, which was built to match the Interceptor.

True to some degree. They may be, but the issue with the Tie Fighter is its lack of range from ANY ship carrying it. ALL Rebel fighters have the ability to go for longer ranges without support.

Alas again thanks to ST technology, apart from photon torpedoes, most ST fighter sized craft will out power/range any SW equivalent.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Um, not built on war? You obviously arent much of a Wars fan are you? Here's a quick rundown:;

These are only the Major conflicts and the list still goes on. There are several sources on the net where you can get a huge comprehensive list with details.

Also, the Imeprial Military was still founded upon tech, strategies, and training developed throughout the Repbulic's History. So the Republic's background in war is Vital. Because the Empire IS the republic, just a change in the federal government (And a larger standing military).

Be aware, most EU is considered canon by fans unless otherwise changed/contradicted by a new Lucas production. It even has to get the official Lucas Seal of Approval to get published (Lucas has even made some demands to authors over the years, and had characters killed off that he didnt like).

Apparently, you missed the part about the EU not being considered part of the official canon (Lucas himself has stated that there are three universes, his universe that is the SW of the movies, the EU universe, that is the SW of the books and movies, and the third universe that is the SW of the individual fans), only part of its own consistent canon, AND the part about this thread dealing with ONLY the official canon from both franchises, regardless of what the popular fan opinion regarding the EU is. According to the movies, the Republic has not known war since its founding, and the implication is that the Republic was founded only a thousand years prior, after the fall of Darth Bane.




It stands to reason that the Federation's flagship would put up a good fight, but I doubt that most of Starfleet would be as able. For instance, look at how much damage Voyager takes from the fighters in "Dragon's Teeth". I think you underestimate the TIEs. They can dodge lasers and turbolasers, and phasers do not appear to be any faster. In any event, the situation still favors the Imperial numbers game. They might lose entire squadrons of fighters, but they can still get the job done.

But SW turbolaser accuracy sucks. TIEs haven't shown any greater maneuverability, for the most part, than the fighters that the Enterprise wiped out with ease. Then there's the matter of their weapons having any effect. Slave I demonstrated weapons yields of less than 20 Gigajoules per bolt at the extreme most (and much more likely something in the range of several hundred Megajoules), and even allowing for a firepower increase by a factor of 4 (what I've estimated as the average firepower increase for Trek weapons since the founding of the Federation), that's still only 80 Gigajoules per pulse, 160 Gigajoules per shot, with, what, maybe 10 shots a second? (rough guess) That's 1.6 TeraWatts per fighter. Multiplied by 720 fighters (everything from 10 ISDs), that's 1,152 TeraWatts, or 1.152 PetaWatts from ten wings of fighters. A single photon torpedo puts out something on the order of 2000 - 8000 (average ~4000) PetaJoules in one explosion. It would take 10 wings of TIEs something like 28 - 115 minutes of continuous fire to equal the energy of a single photon torpedo.

[davie1234]

would Vader not force choke any captain that hailed him from a Fed ship?

I think Fed would win

they have shields and baackup shields and a back up to the back up , emps dont have any ....two torps then its game over next war please

the only thing in SW favour is the force and from what ive heard its a powerful ally

I dont think the Empire had a giant fleet, they controlled the all the systems through fear of the death star, so i dont see too many coming to their rescue, again the Death Star had no shields so beam a few hundred pho torps into the DS and its lights out time

the DS takes too long to fire its main weapon

[Lendosan]

Okay here are some video links to wet your whistles!

Star Trek vs Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4)
Star Trek vs Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDTHB4sSKAI)
Star Trek vs Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHTwoAvGX34)
Lego Star Trek vs Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJFLgNCDug0)

Now this is IMMENSE! I found this YEARS ago but lost the link. Found it again!
Star Trek vs Babylon 5 Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLk0hhWBhEE)
Star Trek vs Babylon 5 Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PucduOfLkvI)

This isnt as good, but its fun (and as it would be should a crossover occur :D)
Star Trek/Babylon 5/Battlestar Galactica vs Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXnPG19npW8)

I hope that you ALL enjoy this video-fest and it REALLY makes your imagination go WILD!

ENJOY! :D

[bitgolem]

they controlled the all the systems through fear of the death star

Not really... The Death Star never really got deployed. They blew up Alderaan with it right after the first one was deployed, then the rebels blew it up, and they blew the second one up and killed the Emperor before it could even finish construction.
More like fear Vader would show up...

[Zyrious]

Apparently, you missed the part about the EU not being considered part of the official canon (Lucas himself has stated that there are three universes, his universe that is the SW of the movies, the EU universe, that is the SW of the books and movies, and the third universe that is the SW of the individual fans), only part of its own consistent canon, AND the part about this thread dealing with ONLY the official canon from both franchises, regardless of what the popular fan opinion regarding the EU is. According to the movies, the Republic has not known war since its founding, and the implication is that the Republic was founded only a thousand years prior, after the fall of Darth Bane.





If you're gonna throw out the EU, then i'm done. Over 2/3 of Star Wars to us fans is the EU, and it is widely accepted by Star Wars fans.Star Trek has hundreds of hours of TV and 10 movies, where as Star Wars has 6 movies. The Real meat is in the EU, If you toss that out, i'm done.

Also, it's hard to fight someone who throws around numbers without explicitly detailing how they came up with those numbers. If you want a numbers debate, you'd probably best head over to Stardestroyer.net. He does have degree's in Math And Science(Physics? i dont remember) and would gladly debate you in the finer details on his forums. (Please, no Ad Hominem attacks)

Regardless, as i said, since you're throwing out the EU, Those of us who like Star Wars can only debate you using 6 movies, where as you have over a thousand hours of footage total to analyze in detail. You've stacked the deck in favor of Star Trek. Plus, my previous comments on this debate sitll apply, see my other post on the previous page.

Also, despite what lucas said, here's some quote's of Lucasfilm's position on EU and Canon: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon
Clearly stating the EU is part of Canon. All that's different is that anything in the movies supercedes the EU. So if something differs between the two, the movie version is right. Other than that, all of EU is canon, and is heavily reviewed and worked over by lucas and lucasfilm. But you go right ahead and ignore it.

[ranagrande]

But SW turbolaser accuracy sucks. TIEs haven't shown any greater maneuverability, for the most part, than the fighters that the Enterprise wiped out with ease. Then there's the matter of their weapons having any effect. Slave I demonstrated weapons yields of less than 20 Gigajoules per bolt at the extreme most (and much more likely something in the range of several hundred Megajoules), and even allowing for a firepower increase by a factor of 4 (what I've estimated as the average firepower increase for Trek weapons since the founding of the Federation), that's still only 80 Gigajoules per pulse, 160 Gigajoules per shot, with, what, maybe 10 shots a second? (rough guess) That's 1.6 TeraWatts per fighter. Multiplied by 720 fighters (everything from 10 ISDs), that's 1,152 TeraWatts, or 1.152 PetaWatts from ten wings of fighters. A single photon torpedo puts out something on the order of 2000 - 8000 (average ~4000) PetaJoules in one explosion. It would take 10 wings of TIEs something like 28 - 115 minutes of continuous fire to equal the energy of a single photon torpedo.
Where are those numbers from? I don't think they're canon. I do still think the Federation wins in the end, but it would be a lot closer than you think.

[starshipcaptain]

well Star wars ships are more like aircraft carriers while STar Trek is more like a battle ship. so i think star wars would win

[Lendosan]

well Star wars ships are more like aircraft carriers while STar Trek is more like a battle ship. so i think star wars would win

Well if Star Wars vessels where more like Aircraft Carriers then they would lose, due to the pace of spatial combat.

If the Star Wars vessels where more attack based they would lose due to lack of weapon/power output.

Either way, Star Trek wins. We have better power systems. better shields, more effective weaponry and better staying power. The only thing we lack is the dark side and I promise once one bridge captain dies, no one will open a hail from any SW vessel just to be safe. How will you use your dark powers then? Impossible.

Star Trek 1
Star Wars 0
Full time. Man of the Match ~ Gene ;)

[starshipcaptain]

if only star trek had remote control fighters. then they could attack from all angles

[Endariok]

I've been quietly observing this thread for the past few days and had some very nice 'belly' laughs from it. It breaks the monotony of my day and makes me greatfull that i left such madness behind long ago.

I know its futile to ask for this and maybe even a little masochistic but i'll ask anyway, because i have some twisted sense of self worth defined foundationally by rejection and derision from my peers.
Well my request is this, could you all please stop this senseless debate? See, its been established time and time again that any ST vs SW confrontation is, inevitably, without merrit. It all ends with obscure analysis of single frames of enjoyable sci-fi flicks and near arbitrary deductions. Don't you see? You're missing the essence of both franchises. You're butchering the fun just to fulfill some puerile epeen contest. Refer to No1UKnow's quote in my sig.

Well since this is probably falling on def ears i'll end by saying, 'have a nice day and i'll see you on the other side of sanity.'

[Ilithi_Dragon]

If you're gonna throw out the EU, then i'm done. Over 2/3 of Star Wars to us fans is the EU, and it is widely accepted by Star Wars fans.Star Trek has hundreds of hours of TV and 10 movies, where as Star Wars has 6 movies. The Real meat is in the EU, If you toss that out, i'm done.

It was clearly indicated at the beginning of this thread that it would be covering only the official canon (which IS what is on screen and not the EU. The EU has its own official canon policy, but it is not the Official canon). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you HAVE to discount the EU in EVERYTHING you do or envision SW in, as Lucas himself said, there are three different canons, the Official canon of the movies, the canon of the EU, and the personal canon of the fans (and the same can be applied to Trek). For example, in my personal canon view of Trek, Enterprise never existed, not even as a trashy, second-rate holonovel.

When in an open, public debate, however, I can't operate on my personal canon, because it will be different from everyone else's personal canon. In an open, public debate, such as this one, we have to use an official canon. I prefer to use the official film-only canon of both franchises, because if you add the EU of one, you have to add the EU of the other (well, you don't really HAVE to, but you can get some really wonky results if you don't, and that goes both ways).

That this discussion only covers the film-only canon was established in the opening post, and confirmed by general consensus in the opening pages.



Also, it's hard to fight someone who throws around numbers without explicitly detailing how they came up with those numbers. If you want a numbers debate, you'd probably best head over to Stardestroyer.net. He does have degree's in Math And Science(Physics? i dont remember) and would gladly debate you in the finer details on his forums. (Please, no Ad Hominem attacks)

I'm sorry, I haven't gone into detail as to where I'm getting my numbers (much of my posting is done in my spare time at work, where I don't have easy access to all my material, or enough time to create an in-depth presentation). Most of the numbers I'm getting are coming from www.ST-v-SW.net. Particularly these four pages:
http://st-v-sw.net/STSWcompare.html - General overview
http://st-v-sw.net/STSWaster.html - TESB asteroid popping
http://st-v-sw.net/STSWasterosmack.html - Geonosis asteroid cracking
http://st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html - Trek Asteroid popping (primarily VOY "Rise")

As for going on to SDN... I think it would be an interesting experiment for you to create an alternate account on the SDN forums, and post under your assumed name, making calm, reasoned arguments in favor of Trek, disputing the arguments and 'evidence' presented by Wong on his site (whether you actually believe it or not, just for the sake of the experiment), and to see how long it takes before the ad hominem attacks against you, and general shouting down of dissenting opinions start rolling in. I'd actually do it myself, and record the process, but I simply don't have enough time half the pursuits I'm already engaged in, let alone to take on another. (I'm also not too keen on the idea of being harassed across the internet, emailed death threats, having personal information posted online, etc.)



Also, despite what lucas said, here's some quote's of Lucasfilm's position on EU and Canon: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon
Clearly stating the EU is part of Canon. All that's different is that anything in the movies supercedes the EU. So if something differs between the two, the movie version is right. Other than that, all of EU is canon, and is heavily reviewed and worked over by lucas and lucasfilm. But you go right ahead and ignore it.

"The Star Wars universe has expanded far beyond the movies. How much leeway do the game makers and novel writers have? "

"They have their own kind of world. There's three pillars of Star Wars. I'll probably get in trouble for this but it's OK! There's three pillars: the father, the son and the holy ghost. I'm the father, Howard Roffman [president of Lucas Licensing] is the son and the holy ghost is the fans, this kind of ethereal world of people coming up with all kinds of different ideas and histories. Now these three different pillars don't always match, but the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves. Howard tries to be consistent but sometimes he goes off on tangents and it's hard to hold him back. He once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead." In the early days I told them that they couldn't do anything about how Darth Vader was born, for obvious reasons, but otherwise I pretty much let them do whatever they wanted. They created this whole amazing universe that goes on for millions of years!"

"Are you happy for new Star Wars tales to be told after you're gone?"

"I've left pretty explicit instructions for there not to be any more features. There will definitely be no Episodes VII-IX. That's because there isn't any story. I mean, I never thought of anything. And now there have been novels about the events after Episode VI, which isn't at all what I would have done with it. The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married..."

- George Lucas, Flannelled One, May 2008, "George Lucas", 'TF Interview', Total Film Magazine


""There really isn't any story to tell there," the filmmaker said. "It's been covered in the books and video games and comic books, which are things I think are incredibly creative but that I don't really have anything to do with other than being the person who built the sandbox they're playing in."

In the non-film versions of the saga, for instance, Han Solo and Princess Leia marry and have three children, one of them named Anakin after his notorious grandfather. All of it has been popular with core fans, but Lucas doesn't see any upside to extending the tale past the leafy luau on Endor where Vader's corpse was torched.

"I get asked all the time, 'What happens after "Return of the Jedi"?,' and there really is no answer for that," he said. "The movies were the story of Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker, and when Luke saves the galaxy and redeems his father, that's where that story ends.""

- George Lucas, Flannelled One, May 2008, "George Lucas: 'Star Wars' won't go beyond Darth Vader", interview with Los Angeles Times (Geoff Boucher)

From The Flannelled One himself, this year. Since he's kinda the creator of the entire universe (as far as the SW universe is concerned, he's God), and kinda holds the copyright to the universe (i.e. concerning SW, God), and is kinda the owner and top official of the company that owns and operates the entire SW franchise (once again, that God reference is applicable), you can't really trump his statements. There is no "despite what [he] said." There is just what he said. Period. He's the author and copyright holder, and owner of the franchise. As far as his creation is concerned, his word is law. Ask any author, or lawyer. Plenty of other quotes from his minions ('minions' used here because I like the word) support the same position. Quotes from lesser minions (again, I really like that word) that contradict that, are in error, because the word of a lesser minion logically holds less weight than the word of the 'boss.'

For a complete (or the next best thing) listing of quotes relating to the SW canon policy, see here: http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes.html

[GRUNT1701]

No Trek forum is complete without these types of topics. LOL.

[Endariok]

No Trek forum is complete without these types of topics. LOL.

The good, the bad and ugly eh? Love and marriage right? I can live with that. Carry on then.

[Silhouette]

So it basically breaks down to the following:

1. Stormtroopers who can't seem to actually hit what thier shooting at.

VS

2. Red Shirts that die as soon as the fighting starts.


I'm thinking 1,000 year Galatic War and a large body count. On both sides

Can you say "Kobayashi Maru".

Someone has to think this through better. :p

Sil

[Zyrious]

I'm opting out of this discussion. I'm not going to fight any longer against a universe based in Technobabble.. Plus, this argument doesnt take into account EU, It's stacked in favor of Trek, and i can tell the OP is obviously biased towards trek(Not trying to ad hominem), whereas i like to see myself as a fan of both.

Just remember, you can't compare Trek EU to Star Wars EU. Paramount never really cared for any EU stuff and never payed attention to it, and it's never been a HUGE part of Star trek Lore (even though there are some interesting books). whereas all Wars EU goes through strict licensing requirements, so IS roughly consistent with movie lore. Furthermore, Star wars IS the EU. While the casual may only see the movies, the vast majority of star wars takes place in the EU. Even a vast portion of Games reference the EU, and even the prequels reference the EU. By ignoring the EU, you ignore half of star wars in an attempt to toss out any possible way to get tangible statistics and weapons values. Which, without those, makes it impossible to fight against Star Trek which throws out random numbers every 5 minutes, in every episode. That's over 1000 hours of technobabble.

And thus, i step out of this debate.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I'm opting out of this discussion. I'm not going to fight any longer against a universe based in Technobabble.. Plus, this argument doesnt take into account EU, It's stacked in favor of Trek, and i can tell the OP is obviously biased towards trek(Not trying to ad hominem), whereas i like to see myself as a fan of both.


Oh, I'm a fan of both (though I've always tended to prefer Trek over Wars, but that's just personal taste). And yes, I started this discussion with my opinions on the outcome of a conflict between the Federation and the Empire already established. However, that doesn't make me more or less a fan than either, and I can be a fan of only one or the other and still hold an unbiased opinion on the comparative technical and military capabilities of the Federation and the Empire.

As for 'stacking the deck' in favor of Trek by excluding the EU, the argument could be made that using the SW EU is 'stacking the deck' in favor of Wars, and more effectively because there is documentation of certain pro-Wars fans doing just that through the ICS and other material.

Just remember, you can't compare Trek EU to Star Wars EU. Paramount never really cared for any EU stuff and never payed attention to it, and it's never been a HUGE part of Star trek Lore (even though there are some interesting books). whereas all Wars EU goes through strict licensing requirements, so IS roughly consistent with movie lore.

Actually, that's not accurate. Both ST and SW novels, etc. were not monitored early on, not really, and the EU of both franchises eventually adopted its own set of internal canon policies for the EU material. ST has it just as much as SW, it's just not as prominently debated or contested. Do a little digging into the current policies of the Trek 'EU' licensing and you'll find plenty of info on it.


Furthermore, Star wars IS the EU.

No. Star Wars is the MOVIES. Star Wars wouldn't EXIST without the movies; nothing in the EU would have any basis on ANYTHING without the movies. You are free to have your own personal view on that in your own personal canon, but that is in your own personal canon.


While the casual may only see the movies, the vast majority of star wars takes place in the EU. Even a vast portion of Games reference the EU, and even the prequels reference the EU. By ignoring the EU, you ignore half of star wars in an attempt to toss out any possible way to get tangible statistics and weapons values.

I'm not ignoring the EU in an attempt to 'toss out tangible statistics and weapons values'. I am ignoring the EU because, 1. it is not part of the official canon (see Lucas' quotes above, and the other quotes linked above, there are separate canons for the main and EU franchises) and 2. Certain EU authors are prominent members of the pro-Wars community, and there is documentation of them deliberately padding the stats of the ICS and other EU works heavily in their favor, for the SOLE purpose of boosting the power of Wars in the Vs. debates.

As Lucas himself stated many times, the EU does not constitute his vision of SW, and as he is the author, creator, copyright holder and owner, and still alive and very much active in the decision-making processes, his word is essentially law on the matter. This debate is about the official Trek canon against the official Lucas vision of SW canon, not the various expansions and divergences from that vision created by the numerous EU authors.


Which, without those, makes it impossible to fight against Star Trek which throws out random numbers every 5 minutes, in every episode. That's over 1000 hours of technobabble.

And thus, i step out of this debate.

As you wish.

[Zyrious]

Oh, I'm a fan of both (though I've always tended to prefer Trek over Wars, but that's just personal taste). And yes, I started this discussion with my opinions on the outcome of a conflict between the Federation and the Empire already established. However, that doesn't make me more or less a fan than either, and I can be a fan of only one or the other and still hold an unbiased opinion on the comparative technical and military capabilities of the Federation and the Empire.

As for 'stacking the deck' in favor of Trek by excluding the EU, the argument could be made that using the SW EU is 'stacking the deck' in favor of Wars, and more effectively because there is documentation of certain pro-Wars fans doing just that through the ICS and other material.



Actually, that's not accurate. Both ST and SW novels, etc. were not monitored early on, not really, and the EU of both franchises eventually adopted its own set of internal canon policies for the EU material. ST has it just as much as SW, it's just not as prominently debated or contested. Do a little digging into the current policies of the Trek 'EU' licensing and you'll find plenty of info on it.




No. Star Wars is the MOVIES. Star Wars wouldn't EXIST without the movies; nothing in the EU would have any basis on ANYTHING without the movies. You are free to have your own personal view on that in your own personal canon, but that is in your own personal canon.




I'm not ignoring the EU in an attempt to 'toss out tangible statistics and weapons values'. I am ignoring the EU because, 1. it is not part of the official canon (see Lucas' quotes above, and the other quotes linked above, there are separate canons for the main and EU franchises) and 2. Certain EU authors are prominent members of the pro-Wars community, and there is documentation of them deliberately padding the stats of the ICS and other EU works heavily in their favor, for the SOLE purpose of boosting the power of Wars in the Vs. debates.

As Lucas himself stated many times, the EU does not constitute his vision of SW, and as he is the author, creator, copyright holder and owner, and still alive and very much active in the decision-making processes, his word is essentially law on the matter. This debate is about the official Trek canon against the official Lucas vision of SW canon, not the various expansions and divergences from that vision created by the numerous EU authors.




As you wish.

I'm sorry, i just had to comment. Pro Warsy? Wtf? Dude, that's getting real low. Are you saying that people view this ST vs SW thing so highly that they would create Lucasfilm approved EU simply to pad the stats of Star Wars ships? I think you place far too much value in this versus thing.

[Himser]

True to some degree. They may be, but the issue with the Tie Fighter is its lack of range from ANY ship carrying it. ALL Rebel fighters have the ability to go for longer ranges without support.

Alas again thanks to ST technology, apart from photon torpedoes, most ST fighter sized craft will out power/range any SW equivalent.

that may be because the fact a ST "fighter" is the size of a SW small corvette .. :P 20 meters long last io looked .. even a ST shuddle is at least 15meters .. a tie fighter is just big enouf to fit a pilot .. and most of that is the H wings ( witch we dont know what they do .. lol ) and if you watch episode 1,2,3 just look at how manuvrable thoe fighters are ..



lol im not stepping out of this debate just bacuse the cannon is stacked in trecks favor :P .. its half the fun in debating when everyone disagrees ( hence the arguing in a trek forum as well) ..

also like ive said before when ooking at space battles look at episode 1,2,3 cuz frankly 4,5,6 were from the 70s and have crappy grafics and thus they should only be used agaist TOS and TOS should only be used agist episode 4,5,6 ..

and i agree true canon is the movies .. but the true feeling of star wars is the EU be it books and games. whereas the true feeling of star trek is well the series ( witch yes is long and good) and the few good games ( what few of them there are) l. so yes true cannon is the movies but thats not the essence if star wars ..

( and even agaist the SWEU transoporter and replicator technology would be a pretty good fight)

and i agree the feds have more expereance in their scale wars then the empire would have .. remember the Empire was creted by a civil war and as soon as it took power yes .. there were ( in the novilizations witch should be cannon cuz they were written by GL) a lot of rebel ships . but they were nothing compared to the empires fleet .. and the empires fleet relly didnt fight major wars like the feds did .. ( athough the clone wars were well bigger then evben the dominion war in size, number and scale of fighting) .. it was more of a milliterized police force ..


also i disagree on you saying it was 1000 years old .,. its 1000 generations witch is what 30 times more so 30,000 years .. ( and i agree that their technology moves VERY slowly comparted to the federation .. but relly iwth 30,000 years of "peace" and a few short decads of war why would they try and im[rove their technology .. those ventitator destroyers were not mutch less powerful then a impereal destroyer .. ( the only thing they did was make them bigger and make one wayyyy bigger but same tech) .

also hmmm why dont we try throwing out the tecnobabble for a page and focus on image and effect.. ( i know tecnobabbl;e is trekkies strong suit .. but frankly SW has NONE so we cant use it as a defence)

look at the effects of ship on ship combat .. star treck DS(, nemisis and enterpirse are the most relivent series for this ..

largely shilds go from 100% to 30% is a matter of seconds .. ( but sadly when we should see dammage .. the scene 95% of the time goes to the famous bridge sparks) but on the few instances of dammage to ships in ST .. its ussaly one blast 2 blast .. ( no visible dfammage ) and then bam the ship blows up .. or in the odd case of vsible dammage by these ( super powerful weopns) it creates black spots on the hull or in the case of TOS a hole throgh the disk. nothing comparabe to teh dammage in episode 1,2,3 of SW..

( even nemisis the warbirds were "smoking" and the one wing was blown off. )

largly the only time a ship is blown apart is when its warp core blows apart :P ..

largly but what i have always witnessed ( and how fast theoir shilds go down) pulse disrupters from birds of prey are at least equil to turbolasers in episode 1,2,3 .. and a SW ship has a lot of them ..

[Zyrious]

I will just say this, as a closing statement (Forgive me for going on and not just leaving).

This is why i feel the EU is not only important, but VITAL, to a VS. Debate: Unlike star trek, there is almsot exactly 0 technobabble in all 6 movies with rare exception. That means no stats, numbers, or values are placed on any weapons in Star Wars. Further more, there are very few scenes where you can see these weapons interract with the environment, and they are blurry, quick, and done with 70's movie tech (with exception of the Prequels, but episode 1 only has a scene with fighters blasting a shielded ship, episode 2 only has a duel between a heavy fighter and an interceptor, and episode 3's scene while big and grand only shows brief stints of weapon impacts and because of factors like shields/armor, we cannot gain any incite into strength. There are no scenes on a bridge in which any details are given as to shield/weapon strength like in star trek).

Watching ships blast eachother is overly irrelevant in gathering values, since as Offense gains strength, so does Defense, so any armor or shields could negate some kind of 900 gigaton laser and we wouldnt know it, or they could be pee shooters and we wouldnt know it.. The environment is static, and thus can be used, sort of, as a way to determine strength. Unfortuanatly, even then you have to know the composition of the environment, and again, unlike trek, Star Wars does 0 detailing of any of this. It is, therefore in my opinion, impossible for VS whatsoever, at all. There are only a handful, literally, of visualized space battles in Star Wars, and most only show a few background shots of the action, with maybe 2 minutes total each movie with real involved scenes of the action.

So in conclusion, the two are *incompatible* for versus debates. Because, there are 0 values on the wars side. That's right, they fire glowing effects, and that's about as much as is concrete in G- level canon.

[Himser]

and wile the EU wouldnt exist without the movies .. the star wars univbers wouldnt exist without the EU ,.. games, books , toys, even episode 1,2,3 use many many referances from the EU that was creted after the 70's movies .. ( for example coracent is a EU planet ,.. GL used it ..

[Zyrious]

and wile the EU wouldnt exist without the movies .. the star wars univbers wouldnt exist without the EU ,.. games, books , toys, even episode 1,2,3 use many many referances from the EU that was creted after the 70's movies .. ( for example coracent is a EU planet ,.. GL used it ..

I agree, unlike Star Trek where the essence is in the series, for Star Wars the Essence really is the EU. We all love watching the movies, but millions of Wars fans also read the books and play the storyheavy games like Kotor. The Kotor Story of which is very, very popular among the star wars community.

[Himser]

I agree, unlike Star Trek where the essence is in the series, for Star Wars the Essence really is the EU. We all love watching the movies, but millions of Wars fans also read the books and play the storyheavy games like Kotor. The Kotor Story of which is very, very popular among the star wars community.

i never did i hate the jedi :P .. ( it goes without saying i hate the rebels, and the federation too .. almost all good guys suck) .. my fav game was SW Tie Figheter .. you diont havta deal with the bull .. just blow up reguler people .. star trek needs a game like that too .. where you dont havta to be the good guys for once and can be evil .. :P

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I'm sorry, i just had to comment. Pro Warsy? Wtf? Dude, that's getting real low. Are you saying that people view this ST vs SW thing so highly that they would create Lucasfilm approved EU simply to pad the stats of Star Wars ships? I think you place far too much value in this versus thing.

Actually, yes, I am saying that there are people who have gone to those lengths. And yes, it is sad that they would do that, because this is just a debate (and online, to boot). Unfortunately, as we all know, some people just take things too far, beyond the realm of hobbies and sideline entertainment into the realm of obsession. See here (http://www.st-v-sw.net/Warsiegroup.html) for a more in-depth overview. When you consider that these are the same people who have inspired and encouraged the sending of hatemail and even death threats to those opponents they couldn't simply shout down, and have gone to greater lengths, including the posting of personal information online and drawing as much attention to it as possible, and even creating disturbing 'fan-fics' of themselves tracking down one of their top 'opponents' IRL and essentially beating him to death (and no, I am not making this stuff up), going to the extent of trying to influence what they consider to be canon material in their favor is hardly surprising.


As for 'Pro Warsy' I think you're misinterpreting my usage. I think you're getting "Professional Warsie" out of it, where I meant 'Pro Star Wars', as in being in favor of the Star Wars side of the Vs. debates, much as someone can be pro-Star Trek, or pro-democracy, or pro-abortion, etc.

[vanlore]

Ilithi Dragon keep posting. I really enjoy reading your posts and watching you educate people and crush trolls :D Cheers :D

[Arcturus]

Slave 1 Destroyed Asteroids, The Enterprise can't.

Seismic Charges are different then phasers and torpedoes. When Slave 1's missile missed Obi-Wan's fighter and hit an asteroid it did not blow up. Seismic Charges are a fun asteroid destroying technology.

Star Trek ships are fast, very fast. They also like to pretend relativity is real and if they go at the speed of light they attain infinite mass...and all the effects of thus, which is why they create a warp bubble and bypass the effects all together.

SW ships are massive because it looks really cool on the big screen and plays into the audiences emotions, from a writing standpoint, it didn't have to be a question of is that feasible? It was let's just do it! There's no way an energy source like that exists that can power a tie fighter to out-gun the Enterprise-E.

I am a fan of Star Wars, I am also a fan of Star Trek, Trek being something more to me than a really cool movie to watch, I'm obliged to defend it which is really the whole point of what makes this thread fun.

We are comparing apples and oranges, but my apple will smash your orange!:p

[Lendosan]

Slave 1 Destroyed Asteroids, The Enterprise can't.

Doesn't need too, we have a deflector array. It, um, deflects asteroids out of our path or moves the ship. Quite simple. :p

[Arcturus]

If only the deflector worked on USS Bozemans :-p
Anyway, I know I was just countering a popular argument with Asteroids being a way to caluclate weapon capacity from SW to ST... It really isn't.

[Lendosan]

Anyway, I know I was just countering a popular argument with Asteroids being a way to caluclate weapon capacity from SW to ST... It really isn't.

Well Photon Torpedoes don't carry one type of warhead. They can be programed to create a bigger BOOM if needed, its just why blow up an asteroid when it can be moved via another piece of ship kit? Poor example.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

If only the deflector worked on USS Bozemans :-p
Anyway, I know I was just countering a popular argument with Asteroids being a way to caluclate weapon capacity from SW to ST... It really isn't.

Actually, it is, to a degree. It just has to be approached reasonably, after a proper analysis (and without ignoring things like all the laws of thermodynamics, et al the assumed total vaporization of asteroids in TESB via instantaneous transfer of energy through the entire asteroid). And without using only the one-off instances of extremely non-sensical weakness. They can't give you precise figures down to the exact decimal place, but they can give you rough estimates of firepower, at least.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Well Photon Torpedoes don't carry one type of warhead. They can be programed to create a bigger BOOM if needed, its just why blow up an asteroid when it can be moved via another piece of ship kit? Poor example.

But they've done that before. In btoth TNG and VOY, they blew up rather large asteroids (easily a kilometer+) with a couple photon torpedoes.

[Arcturus]

You couldn't be more right! I'm sure a tri cobalt device could do away with any asteroid you could throw out at us, or even push it into subspace. The example was more about how the slave 1 couldn't touch an asteroid without those charges. Except for a couple of the small ones (few feet long) the lasers actually did melt):)

[Richman12]

Dang this forum is still going strong! :eek:
Though it ended a while back lol.:rolleyes:

[Lendosan]

Dang this forum is still going strong! :eek:
Though it ended a while back lol.:rolleyes:

Negaitve. You will be assimilated into the ST vs SW Collective.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

You couldn't be more right! I'm sure a tri cobalt device could do away with any asteroid you could throw out at us, or even push it into subspace. The example was more about how the slave 1 couldn't touch an asteroid without those charges. Except for a couple of the small ones (few feet long) the lasers actually did melt):)

Slave I's weapons more or less met the cratering energy requirement (the amount of energy required to create a crater the same diameter as the asteroid), which could be up to 20 GigaJoules at most, though is probably closer to something between 800-1000 MegaJoules.


Voyager, however, fired on an asteroid that was at an absolute minimum equal in size to her (and most likely several times larger), and with just a single photon torpedo, the crew was not expecting any debris over a centimeter in diameter (which would requrie ENORMOUS energy, and much of the asteroid to have been vaporized, since photon torpdoes aren't flashy space blenders). That the asteroid wasn't destroyed in such a fashion doesn't matter, because it's characteristics were not what the crew had originally scanned (it was composed of different materials, some of which were much denser, plus others that were silicates, which would be much more likely to shatter into larger fragments instead of being vaporized than metals).

[PattonJ007]

This thread was just a bad idea LOL.

I think it would be interesting to see the two series go at it but when you say Star Trek VS Star Wars do you mean every ship in each series battling every ship from the other series? It that were the case what about the Borg or Species 8472? Or for that matter what about the Q?

Ha ha all Q would have to do is snap his fingers the ships from Star Wars would dissapear...

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I think it would be interesting to see the two series go at it but when you say Star Trek VS Star Wars do you mean every ship in each series battling every ship from the other series? It that were the case what about the Borg or Species 8472? Or for that matter what about the Q?

The opening post defines the parameters as the United Federation of Planets at its height (circa 2380, after recovering fromt he Dominion War) and the Galactic Empire at its height (circa RotJ, before the Rebel attack or after a failed Rebel attack)

[PattonJ007]

Whoops, my bad. Either way theres no way to tell.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Whoops, my bad. Either way theres no way to tell.

Sure there is, if you take the time to analyse them. That's not for everyone, but there are many of us who thoroughly enjoy it.

[Lendosan]

The opening post defines the parameters as the United Federation of Planets at its height (circa 2380, after recovering fromt he Dominion War) and the Galactic Empire at its height (circa RotJ, before the Rebel attack or after a failed Rebel attack)

You joking? I cannot remember reading that. Jesus, that means ST would completely smash SW, plain and simple. I could write up why, but Ive just had some bad news, so another time perhaps.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

You joking? I cannot remember reading that. Jesus, that means ST would completely smash SW, plain and simple. I could write up why, but Ive just had some bad news, so another time perhaps.

Actually, I was wrong, I didn't include that in the opening post. I could have sworn I did... Maybe I was just thinking about it and thought I posted it (I do that sometimes, and it's the most likely explanation if you ever see me start a sentenence half-way through, or leave out the middle of a sentence, etc.).

Anyway, even though I didn't say it in the OP, I know I mentioned it a couple times over the coruse of the discussion. The thread goes on the assumption that, sometime circa 2380, some wormhole or other such plot device connects the ST galaxy with the SW galaxy, round about RotJ (either before the Rebel attack on the second DS, or after a failed attack, depending on how you want to play the story). The Empire and the Federation meet, and an all-out war breaks out.

[Lendosan]

Actually, I was wrong, I didn't include that in the opening post. I could have sworn I did... Maybe I was just thinking about it and thought I posted it (I do that sometimes, and it's the most likely explanation if you ever see me start a sentenence half-way through, or leave out the middle of a sentence, etc.).

Anyway, even though I didn't say it in the OP, I know I mentioned it a couple times over the coruse of the discussion. The thread goes on the assumption that, sometime circa 2380, some wormhole or other such plot device connects the ST galaxy with the SW galaxy, round about RotJ (either before the Rebel attack on the second DS, or after a failed attack, depending on how you want to play the story). The Empire and the Federation meet, and an all-out war breaks out.

Well at this point in ST canon the Federation, Romulans, Klingons and Cardassians will be allied under one banner. The Rebels would do anything to get one over on the Empire. Meaning its a bad day to be a ISD crew member. They wouldn't stand a chance. Sorry, but if that is the case then close this thread :p

Seriously think about it, 2+ Grand Fleets of cloakable vessels, 2+ Grand Fleets of Decent fighting ships and the Entire Rebel Alliance vs The Galactic Empire. Not a fair fight. End Game :D

[Richman12]

This thread was just a bad idea LOL.

I think it would be interesting to see the two series go at it but when you say Star Trek VS Star Wars do you mean every ship in each series battling every ship from the other series? It that were the case what about the Borg or Species 8472? Or for that matter what about the Q?

Ha ha all Q would have to do is snap his fingers the ships from Star Wars would dissapear...

Yeah but "Q" is a mischievouse guy that likes to mettle around in universal affairs and tends to sit back and wacth scenarios he creates unfold which is when utter chaos usually happens.

The Borg however would be a major threat in a ST vs. SW universe because all they would have to do is assimalate 1 jedi and or sith and then all heck would insue for the federation, emipire and any other type of governmental power in that type of universe. This would happen to be the worst case scenario that most ST vs. SW people agree on because then the Borg would know how to use the Force make lightsaber type weapons and varouse other horrors that shake the mind.

Species 8472 have a weakness against certian forms of Bio weapons that any race could adapt and use against them however. Thier ability to travel and form the Fuildic Space where trillions of thier ships and race are based is a major advantage which the empire would have trouble keeping up with. Also all thier ships tend to be fast both in speed and reaction time because they directly control thier ships with thier minds more or less.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Well at this point in ST canon the Federation, Romulans, Klingons and Cardassians will be allied under one banner. The Rebels would do anything to get one over on the Empire. Meaning its a bad day to be a ISD crew member. They wouldn't stand a chance. Sorry, but if that is the case then close this thread :p

Seriously think about it, 2+ Grand Fleets of cloakable vessels, 2+ Grand Fleets of Decent fighting ships and the Entire Rebel Alliance vs The Galactic Empire. Not a fair fight. End Game :D

Actually, the only allies that you can guarantee are the Klingons. Unless the Empire becomes a massive threat, the Romulans and Cardassians aren't in a defensive alliance with the Federation, and while relations between them are at all-time highs, neither the Cardassians nor the Romulans would have any need to get involved in one of the Federation's conflicts, unless it was a Dominion War-esque scenario. Even the Klingons might not get involved, because while they are close allies to the Federation, and always looking for a good fight, they tend to scorn battles with opponents who are vastly inferior. Unless the Galactic Empire posed some significant threat that the Federation couldn't easily handle on its own, it's doubtful any of the other powers would get involved.

[Lendosan]

Actually, the only allies that you can guarantee are the Klingons. Unless the Empire becomes a massive threat, the Romulans and Cardassians aren't in a defensive alliance with the Federation, and while relations between them are at all-time highs, neither the Cardassians nor the Romulans would have any need to get involved in one of the Federation's conflicts, unless it was a Dominion War-esque scenario. Even the Klingons might not get involved, because while they are close allies to the Federation, and always looking for a good fight, they tend to scorn battles with opponents who are vastly inferior. Unless the Galactic Empire posed some significant threat that the Federation couldn't easily handle on its own, it's doubtful any of the other powers would get involved.

True, but the Galactic Empire fight TOTAL WAR's, not just mini-wars. If they mobilize they do so with such intent to win (SW6). So it WOULD be such an occurrence where an outside opponent threatened the Alpha Quadrant, the Romulans would get involved.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

True, but the Galactic Empire fight TOTAL WAR's, not just mini-wars. If they mobilize they do so with such intent to win (SW6). So it WOULD be such an occurrence where an outside opponent threatened the Alpha Quadrant, the Romulans would get involved.

This is assuming, of course, that even with their full force, the Galactic Empire would pose such a major threat, even to just the Federation.

We know that the Federation has extremely powerful warheads based on the asteroid destruction episodes, as well as the handful of episodes in which we see an orbital bombardment (TNG "Skin of Evil", DS9 "The Die is Cast"), and that their energy weapons have roughly comparable yields based on relative effectiveness. We're talking several hundred megatons+, possibly even multiple gigatons, per torpedo.

SW simply hasn't demonstrated anything close to that kind of energy yield, save the Death Star superlaser, and there are implications that it is a sort of chain-reaction weapon instead of pure energy application. All the yields we've seen can be achieved with high-megajoule to high-gigajoule, maybe low-terajoule range energy outputs. The Federation simply out-techs the Empire.

[Zyrious]

This is assuming, of course, that even with their full force, the Galactic Empire would pose such a major threat, even to just the Federation.

We know that the Federation has extremely powerful warheads based on the asteroid destruction episodes, as well as the handful of episodes in which we see an orbital bombardment (TNG "Skin of Evil", DS9 "The Die is Cast"), and that their energy weapons have roughly comparable yields based on relative effectiveness. We're talking several hundred megatons+, possibly even multiple gigatons, per torpedo.

SW simply hasn't demonstrated anything close to that kind of energy yield, save the Death Star superlaser, and there are implications that it is a sort of chain-reaction weapon instead of pure energy application. All the yields we've seen can be achieved with high-megajoule to high-gigajoule, maybe low-terajoule range energy outputs. The Federation simply out-techs the Empire.

How can you make any logical statement like that if there is no way in which to analyze the tech of SW? The only concrete stuff we have with Environmental comparison is the destruction of a handful of iron Nickle 20 meter asteroids and the destruciton of a planet. However, there have been many, many discussions by people with far better and more numerous degrees than me that have described that destroying a planet as quickly as that with one shot as *powerful* stuff. And there is no indication that it is any kind of chain reaction stuff, i dont even know who the guy is who came up with that :rolleyes: sounds like grasping for straws that argument.

[Tsibao]

i dont know if someone else this thought and it may be of topic, but why consider only the starfleet? i may be wrong but SW ships never had a cloak?(unlike romulans and Klingons) and i could imagine the Borg are able to bring some damage to the empire(assimilating a sith oe jedi, that would be some cake^^).

well and consider the differences in size between the ships, i once was shown a picture with the sizes of many Scifi ships(like ST, SW, SG, Andromena, Babylon 5 and SW shps were quite the biggest, easy to hit) well i dont know which side has the stronger shields and so on. . . . so i may stop here and leave the rest to the experts^^

[Ilithi_Dragon]

How can you make any logical statement like that if there is no way in which to analyze the tech of SW? The only concrete stuff we have with Environmental comparison is the destruction of a handful of iron Nickle 20 meter asteroids and the destruciton of a planet. However, there have been many, many discussions by people with far better and more numerous degrees than me that have described that destroying a planet as quickly as that with one shot as *powerful* stuff. And there is no indication that it is any kind of chain reaction stuff, i dont even know who the guy is who came up with that :rolleyes: sounds like grasping for straws that argument.

Well, there's the implication through the SW canon that SW power is generated by fusion reactors, which would put an upper limit on their power generation (and thereby weapons output) capabilities. We have seen SW ship lasers, such as those from Slave I, used in close proximity to people (prime example is when Boba Fett fired Slave I's lasers at Obi Wan while Slave I was still on the ground. The lasers missed, impacting the landing deck and generating explosions, which propelled Obi Wan backwards (though he undoubtedly threw himself backwards as well to avoid the blast). The bolts impacted a meter away from Obi Wan, at the absolute most, yet he survived (and while yes, he is a Jedi, even the Jedi have their limits, as was demonstrated later in the movie, and in RotS). The kind of output figures the folks at SDN are claiming would have incinerated him with impacts at that close range, or at least left him pretty charred. Later, when Obi Wan is following Jango Fett to Geonosis, we get plenty of examples of the Slave I's firepower when it shatters a bunch of asteroids in Jango's attempt to hit Obi Wan. The battle at Hoth didn't show any weapons yields remotely close to the kind claimed by SDN; though that was only a ground engagement with atmospheric fighters and not true starfighters, the weapon sizes were comparable to many of the starfighters, especially those on the AT-ATs, and the full power blast from the AT-AT against the Rebel shield generators was impressive, yes, but we also have to factor in the power generators going up when gaging the size of the explosion. Those were the main generators, and they went up the instant the bolts hit, so there would have been almost no time for any automated emergency containment procedures. The explosion generated could easily have been in the low kiloton-range, yes, but not beyond that. And that's with the main power generator going up, which puts an upper limit on SW energy outputs, even if only a small portion of the reactor energy was released in the explosion.


There are PLENTY of examples of firepower in SW, if you examine the material, all you have to do is look through it with an eye out for damage and blast effects.

[MSG56]

One ring to rule them all . . .

[PattonJ007]

One ring to rule them all . . .

HAHAHA thats awesome!

[Zyrious]

Well, there's the implication through the SW canon that SW power is generated by fusion reactors, which would put an upper limit on their power generation (and thereby weapons output) capabilities. We have seen SW ship lasers, such as those from Slave I, used in close proximity to people (prime example is when Boba Fett fired Slave I's lasers at Obi Wan while Slave I was still on the ground. The lasers missed, impacting the landing deck and generating explosions, which propelled Obi Wan backwards (though he undoubtedly threw himself backwards as well to avoid the blast). The bolts impacted a meter away from Obi Wan, at the absolute most, yet he survived (and while yes, he is a Jedi, even the Jedi have their limits, as was demonstrated later in the movie, and in RotS). The kind of output figures the folks at SDN are claiming would have incinerated him with impacts at that close range, or at least left him pretty charred. Later, when Obi Wan is following Jango Fett to Geonosis, we get plenty of examples of the Slave I's firepower when it shatters a bunch of asteroids in Jango's attempt to hit Obi Wan. The battle at Hoth didn't show any weapons yields remotely close to the kind claimed by SDN; though that was only a ground engagement with atmospheric fighters and not true starfighters, the weapon sizes were comparable to many of the starfighters, especially those on the AT-ATs, and the full power blast from the AT-AT against the Rebel shield generators was impressive, yes, but we also have to factor in the power generators going up when gaging the size of the explosion. Those were the main generators, and they went up the instant the bolts hit, so there would have been almost no time for any automated emergency containment procedures. The explosion generated could easily have been in the low kiloton-range, yes, but not beyond that. And that's with the main power generator going up, which puts an upper limit on SW energy outputs, even if only a small portion of the reactor energy was released in the explosion.


There are PLENTY of examples of firepower in SW, if you examine the material, all you have to do is look through it with an eye out for damage and blast effects.

But no, you can't examine that at all. Because you're comparing 70's movie effects with modern CGI. Furthermore, no, nowhere whatsoever in G-Level canon are fusion reactors ever mention. As a matter of fact, the word FUSION is never even SAID in the entire 6 movie trilogy.

Plus, with things like your AT-AT example, you're using pure conjecture to try and get a power reading. For all you know the powergenerator was built with the strongest material in the galaxy to protect it from lesser lasor blasts and the AT-AT blasted it with a 10 gigaton blast that was mostly absorbed by the armor. Or it hit it with a 900 gigaton blast and Lucas just didnt have the capability to display the effects properly. Or it hit it with the equivelant of a small tank blast. You just dont know.

Your slave 1 example is pointless. Those arent Starship grade turbolasers, they arent imperial technology. Hell, in space it takes 1000 direct hits on the Jedi Interceptor before he even breaks through the armor. So its not exactly a good example of SW firepower.

Your trying to use minute details that were heavily effected by the tech of the time, and as for the prequels, well we dont see any environmental comparison except for the Slave 1, and its made very clear very quickly and intentionally that it's laser weapons are very, very weak (and it still pushed obi-wan around on the ground a bit) and relies mainly on it's rapid-fire and accuracy and its missile compliment.

The fact that you keep mentioning SDN to me seems to indicate you have a bone to pick with their analysis, as a part of the ongoing "war" between the two biased websites, ST-vs-SW and SDN. As i didnt mention SDN at all in my statement.

[Himser]

How can you make any logical statement like that if there is no way in which to analyze the tech of SW? The only concrete stuff we have with Environmental comparison is the destruction of a handful of iron Nickle 20 meter asteroids and the destruciton of a planet. However, there have been many, many discussions by people with far better and more numerous degrees than me that have described that destroying a planet as quickly as that with one shot as *powerful* stuff. And there is no indication that it is any kind of chain reaction stuff, i dont even know who the guy is who came up with that :rolleyes: sounds like grasping for straws that argument.

yea but the xindi can destroy planets too :P .. ( just seen that one )

i agree fullly that seince there ios no tecnobablle in SW that his numbers are completly made up

and i LOVE how you ignore my post :P

and yes SDN's calculations are based on assumptions BUT ST vs SW is also based on total assumptions( look at the phaser page lol) .. the only time id say SDN is correct is with the direct quotes from ST and SW canon. ( witch yes is rare but it is there)

and YES SW did have cloaking . "no ship that small has a cloacking device" that means they have SOME sort of cloacking devices ..

i still profess by watching the movies and shows and ST movies . that a turbo"laser" is equil to a pulse disrupter .. at keast ..

and on the speed issue .. watch ESB they are on the outer outskirts of the galexy

[vanlore]

I have enough nukes to blow you up a dozen times over so ha. Well I have enough nukes to blow you up once and that's all I need.:eek: lol im just kidding

The Federation would spank the empire and they would cry:eek:

Maneuverability- So you say i get hit by your obsolete weapons by sheer numbers of the empire I say the federation would take them out as fast as they come. zap

For the Death Star... Omega 10 particle.. O come on I'm sure someone would use it.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

But no, you can't examine that at all. Because you're comparing 70's movie effects with modern CGI.

It's not all 70s-era movie effects, and not all the comparisons are against modern CGI. If it were a matter of getting EXACT energy yields, etc., I would agree with you, but that's not what is being done here. They are reliable enough to get general ranges of energy output, which we can compare to see how the general firepower of the two powers compares.

Furthermore, no, nowhere whatsoever in G-Level canon are fusion reactors ever mention. As a matter of fact, the word FUSION is never even SAID in the entire 6 movie trilogy.

It was never directly mentioned on-screen, no, but then I never said it was. I said it was INDICATED. If I recall correctly, the script from TESB says that Luke's little power generator he pulls out for R2 is a mini fusion generator (i.e. when referencing the prop, it's called a mini fusion reactor or some such), there's references in the TMP novelization to the use of fusion reactors to power everything common knowledge even to children, and the references to the explosion of the Death Star in the ANH novelization calls the explosion of the Death Star "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun."

It is never directly stated on-screen, but there are several indications to that effect.

Or you could go with the indications from TMP that repulsorlift technology, energy coupling technology that keeps the engines together, and the propulsion of the high-speed podracers are all powered by chemically-fueled jet turbines, which would put the energy requirements for (relatively) small-scale repulsorlift and energy coupling technology into the range of chemically-fueled power generation.


Plus, with things like your AT-AT example, you're using pure conjecture to try and get a power reading. For all you know the powergenerator was built with the strongest material in the galaxy to protect it from lesser lasor blasts and the AT-AT blasted it with a 10 gigaton blast that was mostly absorbed by the armor. Or it hit it with a 900 gigaton blast and Lucas just didnt have the capability to display the effects properly. Or it hit it with the equivelant of a small tank blast. You just dont know.

No, I don't know the exact firepowers used, but if the AT-AT really were throwing around such massive energy yields, we would be able to tell, even if the armor of the object it was hitting was able to absorb most of it. You can't throw that kind of energy around without noticing it (especially given the general inaccuracy of both Rebel and Imperial weaponry, resulting in many impacts on the ground). There are certain laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, that come into play. The only thing close to kiloton-range yields we saw during the entire battle was when the Rebel power generators went up. That was definitely in the low-kiloton range, but it WAS a reactor going up. I'm not saying that it gives us any specific yields for the weapons, and it's a ground battle so starship-grade weaponry wouldn't be employed, but it does show that the output of even their big ground weapons are not Hiroshima-level events. The same goes for the new CGI battles from the prequel trilogy: we never see anything of that high-scale weapons yields, even against starships. Now, again, that's not starship-grade weaponry, except the anti-starship guns used against the Trade Federation starships that were trying to take off, which sliced through the starships' hull with relative ease, but we can't determine yields from their use.

Your slave 1 example is pointless. Those arent Starship grade turbolasers, they arent imperial technology. Hell, in space it takes 1000 direct hits on the Jedi Interceptor before he even breaks through the armor. So its not exactly a good example of SW firepower.

No, not pointless. Jango Fett was obviously a well-payed, well-equipped bounty hunter. He had the resources to equip his ship with some pretty fancy and powerful technology, so it's unlikely that he would skimp out on his ship's main guns. They're not starship-grade weapons, no, and no, they can't be used to get specific yields for Imperial weapons. HOWEVER, they can be used to get a general firepower range for SW fighter-grade weaponry. Even if Jango Fett's guns are low-end on the firepower scale, they can still serve to give us a general output range.

Also, he only scored a handful of direct hits against Obi Wan, most of his shots detonated in flak bursts around the Jedi starfighter, with apparently minimal effect.

Your trying to use minute details that were heavily effected by the tech of the time, and as for the prequels, well we dont see any environmental comparison except for the Slave 1, and its made very clear very quickly and intentionally that it's laser weapons are very, very weak (and it still pushed obi-wan around on the ground a bit) and relies mainly on it's rapid-fire and accuracy and its missile compliment.

Even out-dated VFX are capable of showing high-scale energy yields. Not with as much flashy drama, no, but they're still capable. But we only see high-yield weapons effects on a handful of occasions, even in the newer movies. Additionally, I was never given the impression that Slave I's weapons were very, very weak and relied only on their high rate of fire. That may have been your impression, but that's only your opinion. Also, explosions capable of pushing someone around don't have to be very big, especially when that person is dodging away from the explosions.


The fact that you keep mentioning SDN to me seems to indicate you have a bone to pick with their analysis, as a part of the ongoing "war" between the two biased websites, ST-vs-SW and SDN. As i didnt mention SDN at all in my statement.

SDN is the most prominent and extensive, and most often referenced pro-Wars website on the net. Almost every pro-Wars argument presented in this debate can be found somewhere on SDN, and it has been referenced by various pro-Wars debaters in this thread numerous times. As the source of most of the arguments against my position, it's hardly surprising that I would mention it in my arguments.

That said, I do have a bit of a bone to pick with SDN, because I think the analysis it presents is flawed, inaccurate and misleading, sometimes deliberately so. I do not find it a credible source because I have had interaction with several prominent members of SDN, and have seen the interaction of others with prominent members of SDN, including Mike Wong himself, and have been very unimpressed with their conduct, especially when presented with evidence that contradicts their overblown figures. I have also seen posts and dialogues between various prominent SDN members, including Mike Wong, referring to the influence of EU material to 'pad their stats', so to speak, to support their side of the Vs. debates. And I could go on. All too often in these debates, I have people direct me to SDN for the 'real' or 'accurate' or 'whatever' lay-down of how things are, and then just leave it at that, or continue to refer to the site when I refute the analysis. Perhaps that has caused me to put more effort than necessary into point out SDN's flaws as a reliable resource, though.

[ranagrande]

As I've been on a bit of a trek kick lately, I was playing Star Trek: The Next Generation "A Final Unity" again, and I noticed something interesting. The ship's computer in that game has tactical information for the Enterprise-D. It explicitly states that the ship's phasers can do 247 megajoules and that photon torpedoes can do up to 875 megajoules.

I realize this isn't canon, but they're still real numbers from a published source. I have more faith in those than in the much less precise approximations taken from environmental observation.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

As I've been on a bit of a trek kick lately, I was playing Star Trek: The Next Generation "A Final Unity" again, and I noticed something interesting. The ship's computer in that game has tactical information for the Enterprise-D. It explicitly states that the ship's phasers can do 247 megajoules and that photon torpedoes can do up to 875 megajoules.

I realize this isn't canon, but they're still real numbers from a published source. I have more faith in those than in the much less precise approximations taken from environmental observation.

I don't, because the coal-fired powerplant up the road from my parents' house has an output of over 600 megawatts (watt = joule per second), and an explosion that releases 875 megajoules of energy is equivalent to a little over 200 kg. of TNT, or less than the explosive yield of a 500lb. bomb. That, and it's a completely non-canon game with figures that were probably pulled from a hat and thrown in by the game developers, not anyone with any connections to the actual production staff.

[PattonJ007]

...and Im pretty sure that the size of the blast from the warhead inside Photon Torpedoes are measured in isotons not "megajoules"

[Zyrious]

It's not all 70s-era movie effects, and not all the comparisons are against modern CGI. If it were a matter of getting EXACT energy yields, etc., I would agree with you, but that's not what is being done here. They are reliable enough to get general ranges of energy output, which we can compare to see how the general firepower of the two powers compares.



It was never directly mentioned on-screen, no, but then I never said it was. I said it was INDICATED. If I recall correctly, the script from TESB says that Luke's little power generator he pulls out for R2 is a mini fusion generator (i.e. when referencing the prop, it's called a mini fusion reactor or some such), there's references in the TMP novelization to the use of fusion reactors to power everything common knowledge even to children, and the references to the explosion of the Death Star in the ANH novelization calls the explosion of the Death Star "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun."

It is never directly stated on-screen, but there are several indications to that effect.

Or you could go with the indications from TMP that repulsorlift technology, energy coupling technology that keeps the engines together, and the propulsion of the high-speed podracers are all powered by chemically-fueled jet turbines, which would put the energy requirements for (relatively) small-scale repulsorlift and energy coupling technology into the range of chemically-fueled power generation.




No, I don't know the exact firepowers used, but if the AT-AT really were throwing around such massive energy yields, we would be able to tell, even if the armor of the object it was hitting was able to absorb most of it. You can't throw that kind of energy around without noticing it (especially given the general inaccuracy of both Rebel and Imperial weaponry, resulting in many impacts on the ground). There are certain laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, that come into play. The only thing close to kiloton-range yields we saw during the entire battle was when the Rebel power generators went up. That was definitely in the low-kiloton range, but it WAS a reactor going up. I'm not saying that it gives us any specific yields for the weapons, and it's a ground battle so starship-grade weaponry wouldn't be employed, but it does show that the output of even their big ground weapons are not Hiroshima-level events. The same goes for the new CGI battles from the prequel trilogy: we never see anything of that high-scale weapons yields, even against starships. Now, again, that's not starship-grade weaponry, except the anti-starship guns used against the Trade Federation starships that were trying to take off, which sliced through the starships' hull with relative ease, but we can't determine yields from their use.



No, not pointless. Jango Fett was obviously a well-payed, well-equipped bounty hunter. He had the resources to equip his ship with some pretty fancy and powerful technology, so it's unlikely that he would skimp out on his ship's main guns. They're not starship-grade weapons, no, and no, they can't be used to get specific yields for Imperial weapons. HOWEVER, they can be used to get a general firepower range for SW fighter-grade weaponry. Even if Jango Fett's guns are low-end on the firepower scale, they can still serve to give us a general output range.

Also, he only scored a handful of direct hits against Obi Wan, most of his shots detonated in flak bursts around the Jedi starfighter, with apparently minimal effect.



Even out-dated VFX are capable of showing high-scale energy yields. Not with as much flashy drama, no, but they're still capable. But we only see high-yield weapons effects on a handful of occasions, even in the newer movies. Additionally, I was never given the impression that Slave I's weapons were very, very weak and relied only on their high rate of fire. That may have been your impression, but that's only your opinion. Also, explosions capable of pushing someone around don't have to be very big, especially when that person is dodging away from the explosions.




SDN is the most prominent and extensive, and most often referenced pro-Wars website on the net. Almost every pro-Wars argument presented in this debate can be found somewhere on SDN, and it has been referenced by various pro-Wars debaters in this thread numerous times. As the source of most of the arguments against my position, it's hardly surprising that I would mention it in my arguments.

That said, I do have a bit of a bone to pick with SDN, because I think the analysis it presents is flawed, inaccurate and misleading, sometimes deliberately so. I do not find it a credible source because I have had interaction with several prominent members of SDN, and have seen the interaction of others with prominent members of SDN, including Mike Wong himself, and have been very unimpressed with their conduct, especially when presented with evidence that contradicts their overblown figures. I have also seen posts and dialogues between various prominent SDN members, including Mike Wong, referring to the influence of EU material to 'pad their stats', so to speak, to support their side of the Vs. debates. And I could go on. All too often in these debates, I have people direct me to SDN for the 'real' or 'accurate' or 'whatever' lay-down of how things are, and then just leave it at that, or continue to refer to the site when I refute the analysis. Perhaps that has caused me to put more effort than necessary into point out SDN's flaws as a reliable resource, though.

Keep your issues with SDN out of this. And please, stop calling us "Pro-Warsy" i love trek as much as i love star wars, and i'm not some star wars politician with some kind of moral need to prove Wars is better than trek. Neither is better than the other, and i dare say what you would call "Weaker" i would call "More Realistic". As time and time again, we are seeing your throw out numbers for Trek Yields that are, pretty rediculous imo. But that is the result of technobabble. Furthermore, as you have shown, there are so few examples of weaponry, and pretty much 0 of starship grade weaponry, that you can not get enough conclusive data for a apples to apples comparison.

Also "Liberated energy of a small sun" sounds more like artistic description than the authors details of energy release. Wars doesnt techno-babble, remember?

[onyxcyclone]

First of all Star Wars is ok. Force aside though, a fleet that large takes up a lot of money and not only that you need men and material to keep it going. However, Star Wars does have one overriding advantage, they have BIG ships. Miles and miles long and they build stations almost as big as the Dyson Sphere. However they don't have transporter technology so a couple of really powerful nukes and Ka-BOOM..sorry about the old reference to that Atari game... no fleet and no station.

Barring all of that there is one overriding thing....THE FEDERATION PEOPLE CAN HIT THINGS!!! Look at how many times, even at close range, the storm troopers missed. Its like a sniper that misses when only a meter away from the target...embarrasing.

Economically though the Federation can outlast them since they build more for need then because of money. This is useful since money is still used in the Empire.

Using a historical moment to show this moment...the USSR broke up because they were trying to spend as much as the USA was in military build up.

There is one final thing....these aren't terrans we are talking about in Star Wars but rather a really close lookalike. I mean they aren't from earth since this is in "a galaxy far far away." So unless we sent terrans from earth to that galaxy they arent humans. Thus there is only one thing left to say....

"Never mess with a Human because when you do you lose." LOL

P.S. IF this were to really happen though the Dominion and even the Borg would ally with the Federation....thus Star Wars is doomed. The Borg however would actually find a way to that galaxy, and assimilate them all..then the real battle begins. *shudders*

[Himser]

First of all Star Wars is ok. Force aside though, a fleet that large takes up a lot of money and not only that you need men and material to keep it going. However, Star Wars does have one overriding advantage, they have BIG ships. Miles and miles long and they build stations almost as big as the Dyson Sphere. However they don't have transporter technology so a couple of really powerful nukes and Ka-BOOM..sorry about the old reference to that Atari game... no fleet and no station.

Barring all of that there is one overriding thing....THE FEDERATION PEOPLE CAN HIT THINGS!!! Look at how many times, even at close range, the storm troopers missed. Its like a sniper that misses when only a meter away from the target...embarrasing.

Economically though the Federation can outlast them since they build more for need then because of money. This is useful since money is still used in the Empire.

Using a historical moment to show this moment...the USSR broke up because they were trying to spend as much as the USA was in military build up.

There is one final thing....these aren't terrans we are talking about in Star Wars but rather a really close lookalike. I mean they aren't from earth since this is in "a galaxy far far away." So unless we sent terrans from earth to that galaxy they arent humans. Thus there is only one thing left to say....

"Never mess with a Human because when you do you lose." LOL

P.S. IF this were to really happen though the Dominion and even the Borg would ally with the Federation....thus Star Wars is doomed. The Borg however would actually find a way to that galaxy, and assimilate them all..then the real battle begins. *shudders*

umm the USSR is closer to the federation then to the empire lol the wmpire is half facist with capatalism ( USA) and federation is comunist USSR

:P

both federation AND stormtroopers cant hit anything .. but then again stomtroopers shooot consstantly and feds justshoot and miss onec and a wile .. ( look at clone troopers vs battle sroids and they dont miss that oftain .. and NO ONE can hit the good guys )

SW ships also have sheilds :P .. (referance ALL epiosode 1,2,3,4,5,6 and clone wars )

and the dyson shpere is 1000000X bigger then the death star .. :P remember it circuld the sun .. the death star was a small moon ..

and tell me your theory WHY the borg would ally with the feds?? i cant see this happaning, or the dominion for that matter

[Himser]

It's not all 70s-era movie effects, and not all the comparisons are against modern CGI. If it were a matter of getting EXACT energy yields, etc., I would agree with you, but that's not what is being done here. They are reliable enough to get general ranges of energy output, which we can compare to see how the general firepower of the two powers compares.



It was never directly mentioned on-screen, no, but then I never said it was. I said it was INDICATED. If I recall correctly, the script from TESB says that Luke's little power generator he pulls out for R2 is a mini fusion generator (i.e. when referencing the prop, it's called a mini fusion reactor or some such), there's references in the TMP novelization to the use of fusion reactors to power everything common knowledge even to children, and the references to the explosion of the Death Star in the ANH novelization calls the explosion of the Death Star "the liberated energy of a small artificial sun."

It is never directly stated on-screen, but there are several indications to that effect.

Or you could go with the indications from TMP that repulsorlift technology, energy coupling technology that keeps the engines together, and the propulsion of the high-speed podracers are all powered by chemically-fueled jet turbines, which would put the energy requirements for (relatively) small-scale repulsorlift and energy coupling technology into the range of chemically-fueled power generation.




No, I don't know the exact firepowers used, but if the AT-AT really were throwing around such massive energy yields, we would be able to tell, even if the armor of the object it was hitting was able to absorb most of it. You can't throw that kind of energy around without noticing it (especially given the general inaccuracy of both Rebel and Imperial weaponry, resulting in many impacts on the ground). There are certain laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, that come into play. The only thing close to kiloton-range yields we saw during the entire battle was when the Rebel power generators went up. That was definitely in the low-kiloton range, but it WAS a reactor going up. I'm not saying that it gives us any specific yields for the weapons, and it's a ground battle so starship-grade weaponry wouldn't be employed, but it does show that the output of even their big ground weapons are not Hiroshima-level events. The same goes for the new CGI battles from the prequel trilogy: we never see anything of that high-scale weapons yields, even against starships. Now, again, that's not starship-grade weaponry, except the anti-starship guns used against the Trade Federation starships that were trying to take off, which sliced through the starships' hull with relative ease, but we can't determine yields from their use.



No, not pointless. Jango Fett was obviously a well-payed, well-equipped bounty hunter. He had the resources to equip his ship with some pretty fancy and powerful technology, so it's unlikely that he would skimp out on his ship's main guns. They're not starship-grade weapons, no, and no, they can't be used to get specific yields for Imperial weapons. HOWEVER, they can be used to get a general firepower range for SW fighter-grade weaponry. Even if Jango Fett's guns are low-end on the firepower scale, they can still serve to give us a general output range.

Also, he only scored a handful of direct hits against Obi Wan, most of his shots detonated in flak bursts around the Jedi starfighter, with apparently minimal effect.



Even out-dated VFX are capable of showing high-scale energy yields. Not with as much flashy drama, no, but they're still capable. But we only see high-yield weapons effects on a handful of occasions, even in the newer movies. Additionally, I was never given the impression that Slave I's weapons were very, very weak and relied only on their high rate of fire. That may have been your impression, but that's only your opinion. Also, explosions capable of pushing someone around don't have to be very big, especially when that person is dodging away from the explosions.




SDN is the most prominent and extensive, and most often referenced pro-Wars website on the net. Almost every pro-Wars argument presented in this debate can be found somewhere on SDN, and it has been referenced by various pro-Wars debaters in this thread numerous times. As the source of most of the arguments against my position, it's hardly surprising that I would mention it in my arguments.

That said, I do have a bit of a bone to pick with SDN, because I think the analysis it presents is flawed, inaccurate and misleading, sometimes deliberately so. I do not find it a credible source because I have had interaction with several prominent members of SDN, and have seen the interaction of others with prominent members of SDN, including Mike Wong himself, and have been very unimpressed with their conduct, especially when presented with evidence that contradicts their overblown figures. I have also seen posts and dialogues between various prominent SDN members, including Mike Wong, referring to the influence of EU material to 'pad their stats', so to speak, to support their side of the Vs. debates. And I could go on. All too often in these debates, I have people direct me to SDN for the 'real' or 'accurate' or 'whatever' lay-down of how things are, and then just leave it at that, or continue to refer to the site when I refute the analysis. Perhaps that has caused me to put more effort than necessary into point out SDN's flaws as a reliable resource, though.

if you are going to use the novels then we can as well :P ( the novils and scrips indicate travel in 100s of ligh years in minuits )


and if you think that SDN's argunets are flwd you are 100% correct .. so are st vs sw i can tell you exaccaly how they are flawd bioth of them too ..

and their quots from canon i belive is right as no one else quots from ST canon ..

I don't, because the coal-fired powerplant up the road from my parents' house has an output of over 600 megawatts (watt = joule per second), and an explosion that releases 875 megajoules of energy is equivalent to a little over 200 kg. of TNT, or less than the explosive yield of a 500lb. bomb. That, and it's a completely non-canon game with figures that were probably pulled from a hat and thrown in by the game developers, not anyone with any connections to the actual production staff.

thats a freeken lot of power still remember the fact that that little coal fired power plant is powering 600-700 thousand homes .. ( most homes do not go above the kiliwatt range )

( i work close with three of the 10 largest power plants in canada out of those 10 we power 30 of 35 million people .. and export to the USof A )

[starshipcaptain]

ok what superweapon could over power SW DEATH STAR. Nothing in ST could stand a chance

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Keep your issues with SDN out of this.

The only issue I've been bringing up with SDN is its questionability as a credible resource. You haven't referenced it (at least not recently, I haven't the time to go back through the entire thread to check everything), but several others have. That's my biggest issue with SDN, and that's the only reason I've been mentioning it, outside of references to it that have to do with it being the largest and most prominent repository of pro-SW arguments, etc. on the net.

And please, stop calling us "Pro-Warsy" i love trek as much as i love star wars, and i'm not some star wars politician with some kind of moral need to prove Wars is better than trek. Neither is better than the other, and i dare say what you would call "Weaker" i would call "More Realistic".

I am not using the term 'Pro-Warsy' I am using the term 'pro-Wars', without the Y. When I say 'pro-Wars' I mean "of the opinion/belief that the power(s) in Star Wars have significant or decisive technological, tactical and/or strategic superiority to the power(s) in Star Trek, and would win a non-special-circumstances conflict with them". i.e. you think Star Wars would beat Star Trek, should the two universes come into military conflict. It's not a matter of what you like better or which you're a bigger fan of or which franchise is better, just which side you think would win in a war.

I think you're misconceiving the addition of a Y at the end of 'pro-Wars', transforming it from my intended use as an adjective (being of the opinion that SW would win an in-universe war with ST), to the misinterpreted use as a noun (someone who favors SW over ST).

I hope that clears that confusion up...



As time and time again, we are seeing your throw out numbers for Trek Yields that are, pretty rediculous imo. But that is the result of technobabble.

Considering that Trek power generation is based on matter/anti-matter reactor technology, and that their primary missiles use matter/anti-matter warheads, the energy figures are not beyond the realm of reason. Explosive yields of several hundred megatons to a few gigatons are well within the capabilities of a matter/anti-matter warhead. During the Cold War, decades ago, we built thermonuclear bombs that, with a combination of nuclear fusion and fission, could achieve yields of up to 100 megatons. Matter/anti-matter reactions are far, FAR more efficient, and far, FAR more powerful than nuclear fusion and fission, and with the potential to construct 100-megaton thermonuclear bombs in the mid-late 1900s, several-hundred-megaton+ matter/anti-matter warheads being constructed in the mid-late 2300s, 400 years later, is hardly beyond the realm of believability. That kind of explosion constitutes an energy release in the high-PetaJoule to low ExaJoule range, and ship-grade phasers and disruptors have demonstrated levels of effectiveness comparable to the effectiveness of a photon torpedo, putting them within that same high-PetaJoule to low ExaJoule range.


Furthermore, as you have shown, there are so few examples of weaponry, and pretty much 0 of starship grade weaponry, that you can not get enough conclusive data for a apples to apples comparison.

Actually, I haven't had time to go into a full-scale analysis of starship-grade weaponry (much as I would like to). I used the examples I put up because I could do so fairly quickly, without having to spend hours researching, examining, screencapping, measuring, calculating, etc. for each example (now don't get me wrong, I usually very much enjoy such exercises, I just don't have nearly as much time for it as I used to, much to my disappointment).


Also "Liberated energy of a small sun" sounds more like artistic description than the authors details of energy release. Wars doesnt techno-babble, remember?

Again, I never said there were direct statements of the use of fusion reactors, but that it was INDICATED.



if you are going to use the novels then we can as well :P ( the novils and scrips indicate travel in 100s of ligh years in minuits )

Note the difference between the novelizations and the general EU novels. According to official canon policy, the novelizations of the films are part of the official canon (though ranked below the films and scripts). As for the speed indications... the novelizations and scripts also indicate that the Republic and Empire occupy only a small portion of a dwarf galaxy, instead of the full breadth of a Milky Way-sized large galaxy, which would cut the speed estimations down significantly.




and if you think that SDN's argunets are flwd you are 100% correct .. so are st vs sw i can tell you exaccaly how they are flawd bioth of them too ..

I'd be interested in hearing exactly how they are both flawed.




thats a freeken lot of power still remember the fact that that little coal fired power plant is powering 600-700 thousand homes .. ( most homes do not go above the kiliwatt range )

( i work close with three of the 10 largest power plants in canada out of those 10 we power 30 of 35 million people .. and export to the USof A )

Yes, it's a lot of power, by today's standards. HOWEVER, we are not talking about power outputs by today's standards. My point was that suggesting that a decades-old coal-fired power plant could even come CLOSE to the energy output of a matter/anti-matter reactor, or that the explosive yield of a matter/anti-matter warhead is weaker than a 500lb. bomb, ordnance that has been in use since World War I, is completely ridiculous. (btw, on the latter, to generate a 500lb. explosion with a matter/anti-matter reaction, you would need about 0.0000256 grams of matter and 0.0000256 grams of anti-matter (two hundred fifty-six hundred millionths of a gram of matter and anti-matter, each))



ok what superweapon could over power SW DEATH STAR. Nothing in ST could stand a chance

Oh, Trek has plenty of superweapons. Xindi had the ability to build a planet buster of their own (and iirc, that was on their own, not with the Sphere Builder's help), we've seen sun-busters, the Genesis device, the potentials of weaponizing the Omega particle, tri-cobalt torpedoes, subspace weaponry, thalaron radiation, the list goes on. Now, some of those are banned, by treaty or Federation/Starfleet law, but not all of them are, and tri-cobalt torpedoes would definitely be available for use by Starfleet (and since we have no indication as to the nature of SW shields, there's no way of knowing if they would even provide any form of defense against tricobalts, unless there's some indication as to whether or not they are gravitic in nature).

[archangel118]

ok what superweapon could over power SW DEATH STAR. Nothing in ST could stand a chance

Star Trek has one thing that can beat anything in Star Wars: Q. Q could just snap his fingers and bam, no more death star etc. Or, Q Weapons, which cause supernovas in real space, and thus could destroy a planet. There are other weapons in ST that are just as powerful, such as sub space weapons that can tear apart the fabric of sub space, or the thalaron weapon on the Scimitar that could kill everything on a planet. Anyways, I don't know why I got involved here, these arguments in general are pointless because people won't change their minds once they are made. I like the stvssw web site, I think its a pretty fair comparison, and proper, and based off it the Federation wins. Biggest advantage, the incredible range of ST weapons, torpedos that can hit from light years away. SW can't hit anything more than like 5000 km away. Federation ships could blow them away before they even got into range, and come in from warp, attack and warp away before anything hit them. Gah, there I am, arguing in this even though I know its pointless. CRAP!

[Zyrious]

The only issue I've been bringing up with SDN is its questionability as a credible resource. You haven't referenced it (at least not recently, I haven't the time to go back through the entire thread to check everything), but several others have. That's my biggest issue with SDN, and that's the only reason I've been mentioning it, outside of references to it that have to do with it being the largest and most prominent repository of pro-SW arguments, etc. on the net.



I am not using the term 'Pro-Warsy' I am using the term 'pro-Wars', without the Y. When I say 'pro-Wars' I mean "of the opinion/belief that the power(s) in Star Wars have significant or decisive technological, tactical and/or strategic superiority to the power(s) in Star Trek, and would win a non-special-circumstances conflict with them". i.e. you think Star Wars would beat Star Trek, should the two universes come into military conflict. It's not a matter of what you like better or which you're a bigger fan of or which franchise is better, just which side you think would win in a war.

I think you're misconceiving the addition of a Y at the end of 'pro-Wars', transforming it from my intended use as an adjective (being of the opinion that SW would win an in-universe war with ST), to the misinterpreted use as a noun (someone who favors SW over ST).

I hope that clears that confusion up...





Considering that Trek power generation is based on matter/anti-matter reactor technology, and that their primary missiles use matter/anti-matter warheads, the energy figures are not beyond the realm of reason. Explosive yields of several hundred megatons to a few gigatons are well within the capabilities of a matter/anti-matter warhead. During the Cold War, decades ago, we built thermonuclear bombs that, with a combination of nuclear fusion and fission, could achieve yields of up to 100 megatons. Matter/anti-matter reactions are far, FAR more efficient, and far, FAR more powerful than nuclear fusion and fission, and with the potential to construct 100-megaton thermonuclear bombs in the mid-late 1900s, several-hundred-megaton+ matter/anti-matter warheads being constructed in the mid-late 2300s, 400 years later, is hardly beyond the realm of believability. That kind of explosion constitutes an energy release in the high-PetaJoule to low ExaJoule range, and ship-grade phasers and disruptors have demonstrated levels of effectiveness comparable to the effectiveness of a photon torpedo, putting them within that same high-PetaJoule to low ExaJoule range.




Actually, I haven't had time to go into a full-scale analysis of starship-grade weaponry (much as I would like to). I used the examples I put up because I could do so fairly quickly, without having to spend hours researching, examining, screencapping, measuring, calculating, etc. for each example (now don't get me wrong, I usually very much enjoy such exercises, I just don't have nearly as much time for it as I used to, much to my disappointment).




Again, I never said there were direct statements of the use of fusion reactors, but that it was INDICATED.





Note the difference between the novelizations and the general EU novels. According to official canon policy, the novelizations of the films are part of the official canon (though ranked below the films and scripts). As for the speed indications... the novelizations and scripts also indicate that the Republic and Empire occupy only a small portion of a dwarf galaxy, instead of the full breadth of a Milky Way-sized large galaxy, which would cut the speed estimations down significantly.






I'd be interested in hearing exactly how they are both flawed.






Yes, it's a lot of power, by today's standards. HOWEVER, we are not talking about power outputs by today's standards. My point was that suggesting that a decades-old coal-fired power plant could even come CLOSE to the energy output of a matter/anti-matter reactor, or that the explosive yield of a matter/anti-matter warhead is weaker than a 500lb. bomb, ordnance that has been in use since World War I, is completely ridiculous. (btw, on the latter, to generate a 500lb. explosion with a matter/anti-matter reaction, you would need about 0.0000256 grams of matter and 0.0000256 grams of anti-matter (two hundred fifty-six hundred millionths of a gram of matter and anti-matter, each))





Oh, Trek has plenty of superweapons. Xindi had the ability to build a planet buster of their own (and iirc, that was on their own, not with the Sphere Builder's help), we've seen sun-busters, the Genesis device, the potentials of weaponizing the Omega particle, tri-cobalt torpedoes, subspace weaponry, thalaron radiation, the list goes on. Now, some of those are banned, by treaty or Federation/Starfleet law, but not all of them are, and tri-cobalt torpedoes would definitely be available for use by Starfleet (and since we have no indication as to the nature of SW shields, there's no way of knowing if they would even provide any form of defense against tricobalts, unless there's some indication as to whether or not they are gravitic in nature).

It seems when you make assumptions about SW tech, you err on the side of it being weaker. One could just as easily err on the side of SW tech being insanely powerful. There's not enough to work with. There is 0 technobabble (A plus in my eyes, but not when it comes to vs. debates).

Also, the russians were the only ones who achieved the ability to create a 100 megaton nuclear warhead, and later they had to settle with 50 megatons. This was the Tzar bomb.

Also, anti-matter being used for *everything* is a highly unrealistic aspect of Star Trek. The entire world combined, according to michio kaku, with all of its resources combined could only produce a small handful of Anti-matter, and that's if every country made it their primary focus. It would bankrupt the entire world.

So, if Star Trek is using anti-matter, it would not be using very much of it. Only enough to power its warp-core's for use of Warp Engines. In a realistic sense, i would imagine they would keep weapons and other systems powered by more conventional power-sources of the Era. But then, this is trek. A series based in technobabble, and we know they have thrown out both rediculously high, and rediculously low numbers in Trek. Wars has given no wording of its power output or its powersources.

Also, again there's the effects issue with star wars. And as Lucas at the time wasnt really concerned with how big explosions looked in order fans could get accurate weapon readings, often a generic explosion effect was used, repeatedly.

Also, the xindi did use sphere-builder technology. In the first episode of the Arc Archer used a device to scan the probe and confirm that some of the technology was from the future (If i'm remembering correctly, otherwise disregard). Either way, it wasnt exactly a *boom* type thing, it dug itself into the core of the planet and appeared visually to cause a reaction in the planet (As seen in the episode where Archer is effected by that Expanse virus thingy).

[Ilithi_Dragon]

It seems when you make assumptions about SW tech, you err on the side of it being weaker. One could just as easily err on the side of SW tech being insanely powerful. There's not enough to work with. There is 0 technobabble (A plus in my eyes, but not when it comes to vs. debates).

You don't need just technobable to get rough yield figures. Visual effects are just as fine for determining rough power figures, general ranges of output and endurance, even with older VFX (i.e. yeah, the explosion looks crappy, but it still has a measurable size and measurable effects, and you don't get to dismiss them just because they're older VFX, because they're still canon, unless it's some obvious goof or error).

Also, the russians were the only ones who achieved the ability to create a 100 megaton nuclear warhead, and later they had to settle with 50 megatons. This was the Tzar bomb.

They didn't HAVE to settle for 50 megatons, they reduced it to 50 megatons to limit the nuclear fallout effects when testing. The Tzar Bomba ("Emperor Bomb") could still have achieved 100 megatons in theory (though fortunately that was never put to the test). It should also be noted that the detonation of that warhead resulted in a sustained energy output of 5.4 Yottawatts (kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa, zeta, yotta), though it only lasted about 39 nanoseconds.



Also, anti-matter being used for *everything* is a highly unrealistic aspect of Star Trek. The entire world combined, according to michio kaku, with all of its resources combined could only produce a small handful of Anti-matter, and that's if every country made it their primary focus. It would bankrupt the entire world.

So, if Star Trek is using anti-matter, it would not be using very much of it. Only enough to power its warp-core's for use of Warp Engines. In a realistic sense, i would imagine they would keep weapons and other systems powered by more conventional power-sources of the Era. But then, this is trek. A series based in technobabble, and we know they have thrown out both rediculously high, and rediculously low numbers in Trek. Wars has given no wording of its power output or its powersources.

Yeah, with TODAY'S technology. Obviously, advancements were made, and some (relatively) easy way of manufacturing anti-matter was developed. The simple fact of the matter is that, while fusion reactors are still commonly used for day-to-day power generation (such as houses having their own fusion reactors, etc.), anti-matter reactors have been prolific in the Star Trek universe since at LEAST the mid-2100s. Applying TODAY'S level of technology, capacity and cost of anti-matter production to a society hundreds of years in the future is just downright nonsensical.

[Dariuas]

Star * beats Star * any day. I think its hard to compare the two.

[Lendosan]

Also, anti-matter being used for *everything* is a highly unrealistic aspect of Star Trek. The entire world combined, according to michio kaku, with all of its resources combined could only produce a small handful of Anti-matter, and that's if every country made it their primary focus. It would bankrupt the entire world.

So, if Star Trek is using anti-matter, it would not be using very much of it. Only enough to power its warp-core's for use of Warp Engines. In a realistic sense, i would imagine they would keep weapons and other systems powered by more conventional power-sources of the Era. But then, this is trek. A series based in technobabble, and we know they have thrown out both rediculously high, and rediculously low numbers in Trek. Wars has given no wording of its power output or its powersources.

Sorry but this seems like your saying the following:
"Right, fine, so Star Trek beats Star Wars. However in real science none of this is possible and its all a massive Science Fiction based argument and because Star Wars is loosing Im throwing the `Real World' argument in to win. Thank you, good night!"

If thats the case, why? If thats not the case, you need to stear clear of proving that Star Trek and Star Wars don't work in the real world and stick to pretending your in the future :D

Also what massive innovations forward, in actual modern day technology, has Star Wars bought the world, apart from kids ripping their hands open on strip lights? Nothing.

Star Trek? Well Warp theory, Hyposprays, hand held writing devices. A lot of things in Star Trek are being made today, communicators in the 70's wouldn't have been dreamt of, now we have mobile phones. Miniature tracking devices the size of a very, very small microchip to keep an eye on crew members, GPS locators. Star Trek is based of science and helps science. Star Wars is a teens basement idea and rakes in cash with second rate movies.

If you want to bring the real world in it, guess what, Star Trek wins again :cool:

[vp21ct]

I think we are going about this all wrong. I present to you a different model for evaluating who wins, as well as why the current one doesn't work.
Star Wars will inevitable win against star trek, its simple logistics. The Empire is just BIGGER, BIGGER than the entirety of explored space in the star trek universe, granted part of this can be explained by the fact that the Milky Way is a larger than avereage galaxy, but still, star wars has the inevitable victory over the federation.

HOWEVER, when we introduce larger groups, such as the Borg, or the Vor, or the Higoren (all of wich posses or did posses empires that truly dwarf those of the federation) we begin to see the Empire lose to startreks more varied tecknology. When numbers start to pan out, Treks more varied defence and weapons (not to mention transporters and regenerative hull plating) begins to tip the balance in their favor.

So now i propose the endgame.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BIGGEST, AND BADDEST, OF BOTH GALAXYS, SQUARE OFF.
THATS RIGHT FOLKS: BORG VS. YUSONG VONG

[xiphias]

"I'm sorry. The correct answer is who gives a sh**"

[William_T_Riker]

I have always said to truly compare Star Wars to Star Trek you would have to pit the Death Star against a Borg Cube as they are probably the greatest weapons that the Antagonistic opposition use. The Borg cube would easily win. I made a simple explanation on www.nerdtests.com:

Original plan:
Let's not forget that although the Death Star II = 160km & the Borg Cube = 3km, the Borg would transport onto the death Star, gain the Death Stars technical read out, learn of the power of the main weapon, and merely stay on the opposite side of the Death Star at all times. Then would just pound away at it until it has been destroyed, after all the Death Star cannot regenerate!

In Depth Plan/Back-up Plans:
1. The Borg Cube takes evasive manoeuvres from the Death Stars primary weapon whilst travelling out of the effective range of the Turrets.
2. Whilst this happens Borg drones would simultaneously transport in groups all over the Death Star & gain technical read outs from a ship terminal.
3. Then these drones would be re-transported back into the Borg cube and continue evasive manoeuvres.
4. Then once the drones have recharged and adapted to the small arms used by the Empire they would attack vital parts of the Death Star:
The main bridge to assume total ship control.
The main power conduits to if required shut down all power manually in case bridge is not taken.
The hyperdrive to eliminate the possibility of escape.
The life support the, final solution. Is lowing control of the ship, destroy the life support killing the crew.

or plan B.

Manually transport all members of the Death Stars crew into space to die in its vacuum.

or plan C.

Transport the crew to the Borg cube, sedate them and assimilate them.

[Zyrious]

I have always said to truly compare Star Wars to Star Trek you would have to pit the Death Star against a Borg Cube as they are probably the greatest weapons that the Antagonistic opposition use. The Borg cube would easily win. I made a simple explanation on www.nerdtests.com:

you know, to transport onto the deathstar, the cube would have to get into transporter range. And that's assuming that the deathstar's Deflector shields dont prevent transportation. By the time a cube managed to get into range, the DS would have fired at it already. And the borg cube is a very slow lumbering (and very large an deasy to hit) ship on impulse as is seen in the series. It wont be dodging the Deathstars Main gun, definetly not its anti-starship turrets (there are hundreds, thats why rebels had to use fighters).

[Wonko]

The Death Star would absolutely obliterate a Cube. The Death Star was designed for exactly that kind of titanic, capital ship based combat, and was designed to crush. The Death Star's shields would render their transporters ineffective, and then blam.

[Zyrious]

Sorry but this seems like your saying the following:
"Right, fine, so Star Trek beats Star Wars. However in real science none of this is possible and its all a massive Science Fiction based argument and because Star Wars is loosing Im throwing the `Real World' argument in to win. Thank you, good night!"

I never said Star Wars loses. I said its hard to argue star wars vs star trek, because since Star Wars doesnt have techno-babble, a lot of real-life values are thrown at it. Whereas for those arguing for trek, they use a lot of Technobabble values which are highly unrealistic.


Also what massive innovations forward, in actual modern day technology, has Star Wars bought the world, apart from kids ripping their hands open on strip lights? Nothing.

i can easily find people who were inspired by Star Wars. And guess what? There are scientists who were inspired by *BATMAN* of all things also. You Place way too much credence in Star Trek. You know there are scientists who got into plasma research because of Star Wars. Some have even studied if building a lightsaber is possible. Not that this has ANY bearing on the argument WHATSOEVER. You just seem to be trying to say "Har Har Trek is better than WARS, Har Har" where i HIGHLY disagree. I like BOTH Trek and WARS. I feel no need to pick sides. I just dont like seeing one side going off on a trampant with no opposition so they go on this big tirade where they bash on the other side, that's why i came here.


If you want to bring the real world in it, guess what, Star Trek wins again :cool:

I dont think it's very appropriate for you to try and go on this "Trek rules all" tirade. We were merely arguing on a more technicle basis, not trying to see which franchise is better, which imo neither is. Both have their ups and downs.

[Lendosan]

"I'm sorry. The correct answer is who gives a sh**"

People who have an interest in everything Trek/Wars. Don't like it, no one wants your opinion, don't read it, your not forced too.

:) have a nice day :)

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I never said Star Wars loses. I said its hard to argue star wars vs star trek, because since Star Wars doesnt have techno-babble, a lot of real-life values are thrown at it. Whereas for those arguing for trek, they use a lot of Technobabble values which are highly unrealistic.

What I want to know is how they are unrealistic. We know that Starfleet has been using matter/anti-matter reactors since day one of the Federation, and a majority, if not all of the races that founded the Federation had been using M/AM reactors for decades, if not centuries, prior to joining, and that fusion reactors were common place technology even then. By the mid-24th Century, both technologies would undoubtedly have been significantly refined and advanced. We also know that Photon torpedoes are matter/anti-matter warheads, and that there is more than sufficient space inside the casing to hold enough deuterium and anti-deuterium (in liquid form, compressed or uncompressed) to generate a matter/anti-matter reaction equivalent to 1000 megatons.

The power generation technology we KNOW Starfleet has is capable of producing those kinds of yields and energy outputs, so how are they unrealistic?


i can easily find people who were inspired by Star Wars. And guess what? There are scientists who were inspired by *BATMAN* of all things also. You Place way too much credence in Star Trek. You know there are scientists who got into plasma research because of Star Wars. Some have even studied if building a lightsaber is possible. Not that this has ANY bearing on the argument WHATSOEVER. You just seem to be trying to say "Har Har Trek is better than WARS, Har Har" where i HIGHLY disagree. I like BOTH Trek and WARS. I feel no need to pick sides. I just dont like seeing one side going off on a trampant with no opposition so they go on this big tirade where they bash on the other side, that's why i came here.


I dont think it's very appropriate for you to try and go on this "Trek rules all" tirade. We were merely arguing on a more technicle basis, not trying to see which franchise is better, which imo neither is. Both have their ups and downs.

To clarify for everyone, this is NOT about which franchise is better, it's about which would win an in-universe war (with the primary focus being on the Federation and the Empire). Outside of the universe, neither is better, because they tell different stories in different ways, with their own style. The only real way you can measure whether one franchise is 'better' than the other (unless you want to go into total financial value or something) is on a personal level, based on individual opinions, which can only be applied to the individual.

[Lendosan]

The Death Star would absolutely obliterate a Cube. The Death Star was designed for exactly that kind of titanic, capital ship based combat, and was designed to crush. The Death Star's shields would render their transporters ineffective, and then blam.

True, but the next cube that came along would have adapted and there might be two of them. Sadly then the Death Star would lose. Also they wouldn't destroy the Death Star, they would assimilate it instead, which means then everyone would Auto-lose.

Alas in the scale of things, Star Trek wins.

Yu-Vong? Perhaps they might stand a chance, alas once a few of them had been assimilated, it would be end game. Borg are relentless and will never stopped.

[Zyrious]

What I want to know is how they are unrealistic. We know that Starfleet has been using matter/anti-matter reactors since day one of the Federation, and a majority, if not all of the races that founded the Federation had been using M/AM reactors for decades, if not centuries, prior to joining, and that fusion reactors were common place technology even then. By the mid-24th Century, both technologies would undoubtedly have been significantly refined and advanced. We also know that Photon torpedoes are matter/anti-matter warheads, and that there is more than sufficient space inside the casing to hold enough deuterium and anti-deuterium (in liquid form, compressed or uncompressed) to generate a matter/anti-matter reaction equivalent to 1000 megatons.

The power generation technology we KNOW Starfleet has is capable of producing those kinds of yields and energy outputs, so how are they unrealistic?


"Can we hope to use antimatter as a source of energy? Do you feel antimatter could power vehicles in the future, or would it just be used for major power sources?
There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy ‘source’. Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature; we first have to make every single antiparticle, and we have to invest (much) more energy than we get back during annihilation.

You can imagine antimatter as a storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than you get back.

The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

As for Weapons: "Can we make antimatter bombs?
No. It would take billions of years to produce enough antimatter for a bomb having the same destructiveness as ‘typical’ hydrogen bombs, of which there exist more than ten thousand already.

Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice."

Citation: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html

It is made clear cross several scientific sites, peer-reviewed journals, and even NASA.Gov that no amount of research will make getting anti-matter any less costly. And that it would, infact, take upwards of millions/billions of years to make a single bomb capable of reproducing the effect of already exsisting bombs.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

It is made clear cross several scientific sites, peer-reviewed journals, and even NASA.Gov that no amount of research will make getting anti-matter any less costly. And that it would, infact, take upwards of millions/billions of years to make a single bomb capable of reproducing the effect of already exsisting bombs.

Yes, with existing technology and knowledge, anti-matter reactors and weapons are inconceivably impractical. That is with EXISTING technology and knoweldge. What we have and know TODAY. NOT what we have and know 150 years from now, or 350 years from now. Anti-matter-based power generation is prevalent throughout Trek. It isn't used for household power generation even in the 24th Century, true, but that doesn't prove anything. It just means that fusion reactors, which are far less volatile and have been around and refined a lot longer than M/AM reactors, are sufficient for household needs.

In space and large-scale planetary power generation, however, M/AM reactors have been shown to be very common, and have been the primary power source on starships since before the founding of the Federation (their prevalence as the primary reactor prior to the founding of the Federation is debatable, but that's irrelevant to this discussion and a subject for an entirely different discussion). Clearly, scientists in the Star Trek universe discovered some way to generate anti-matter with far greater efficiency than we have today (also, unless I'm mistaken, it has been indicated in an episode or two of Voyager that, by the 24th Century, discovery of naturally-occurring anti-matter is not uncommon).



Dude save yourself some dignity. You lost your argument to dragon and now your trying to bait him into a different topic.

Dragon pwnt you. The end.

I wouldn't say that I 'pwnt' him, but Zyrious' argument is inherently flawed. Basing an argument off of current understandings of the universe is one thing, but arguing that certain technology cannot exist or be used practically, despite the fact that that technology has been shown to be in use under those very parameters with undeniable prevalence, that is inherently erroneous.


Star Trek has irrefutably established that anti-matter technology has been developed and refined sometime prior to the mid-2100s, and is widely used (at least in the Federation and most other comparable powers) by the mid-2200s, let alone the mid-late 2300s. To argue that that cannot be so based on current understandings of science and technology would be like arguing that warp drive or transporters or most advanced technology used in ST cannot be so based on current understandings of science and technology. Clearly, science and technology have advanced well beyond what we know and have today, allowing technology that, with today's understanding of science, would seem impossible. A hundred years prior to landing on the moon, many scientists would have told you that manned flight, let alone manned SPACE flight, all the way to the moon, was impossible. Go back two or three hundred years, and that is only magnified. If anything, the last three to four hundred years or more should have more than demonstrated that complete upheavals of established scientific paradigms with new discoveries are far from uncommon, and should not be unexpected. There is so much that we only partially understand, and the things that we DON'T know are incomprehensibly more. To say that any one technology is impossible for future generations to develop, based on current understandings of science and current levels of technology, is equitable with saying that the world is flat, or that the Earth is the center of our universe or solar system. Future discoveries WILL prove you wrong.

[Zyrious]

Yes, with existing technology and knowledge, anti-matter reactors and weapons are inconceivably impractical. That is with EXISTING technology and knoweldge. What we have and know TODAY. NOT what we have and know 150 years from now, or 350 years from now. Anti-matter-based power generation is prevalent throughout Trek. It isn't used for household power generation even in the 24th Century, true, but that doesn't prove anything. It just means that fusion reactors, which are far less volatile and have been around and refined a lot longer than M/AM reactors, are sufficient for household needs.

In space and large-scale planetary power generation, however, M/AM reactors have been shown to be very common, and have been the primary power source on starships since before the founding of the Federation (their prevalence as the primary reactor prior to the founding of the Federation is debatable, but that's irrelevant to this discussion and a subject for an entirely different discussion). Clearly, scientists in the Star Trek universe discovered some way to generate anti-matter with far greater efficiency than we have today (also, unless I'm mistaken, it has been indicated in an episode or two of Voyager that, by the 24th Century, discovery of naturally-occurring anti-matter is not uncommon).





I wouldn't say that I 'pwnt' him, but Zyrious' argument is inherently flawed. Basing an argument off of current understandings of the universe is one thing, but arguing that certain technology cannot exist or be used practically, despite the fact that that technology has been shown to be in use under those very parameters with undeniable prevalence, that is inherently erroneous.


Star Trek has irrefutably established that anti-matter technology has been developed and refined sometime prior to the mid-2100s, and is widely used (at least in the Federation and most other comparable powers) by the mid-2200s, let alone the mid-late 2300s. To argue that that cannot be so based on current understandings of science and technology would be like arguing that warp drive or transporters or most advanced technology used in ST cannot be so based on current understandings of science and technology. Clearly, science and technology have advanced well beyond what we know and have today, allowing technology that, with today's understanding of science, would seem impossible. A hundred years prior to landing on the moon, many scientists would have told you that manned flight, let alone manned SPACE flight, all the way to the moon, was impossible. Go back two or three hundred years, and that is only magnified. If anything, the last three to four hundred years or more should have more than demonstrated that complete upheavals of established scientific paradigms with new discoveries are far from uncommon, and should not be unexpected. There is so much that we only partially understand, and the things that we DON'T know are incomprehensibly more. To say that any one technology is impossible for future generations to develop, based on current understandings of science and current levels of technology, is equitable with saying that the world is flat, or that the Earth is the center of our universe or solar system. Future discoveries WILL prove you wrong.


You are essentially saying "Anything could happen". That is an undefeatable argument.
No matter what, everythign in star trek is realistic because of a "time" factor? You're saying the very foundation of science could change in 300 years? Because every article you will read on anti-matter says no further amount of research will ever make its development easier. Also, you are saying "Future discoveries WILL prove you wrong". How can you use an absolute in a hypothetical argument? Also, scientists never believe the Earth was flat, that was a social misunderstanding. Science is a lot more complex now than it use to be, we have far more understanding than we did then, and you wont be seeing major theories like evolution all of a sudden "Ending up wrong all along".

I can not, and will not debate against the "Magic" argument. You have essentially thrown physics out the window, saying "Anything can happen in 300 years". So what is there to debate? You can throw out any number, any technology, and say "Well, its 300 years".

Either way, this entire argument is moot. You're forcing "Realistic" values onto star-wars, whereas Star Trek gets "Magic" values because of its inherent technobabble and the "Time" factor. You have stacked the deck in your favor.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

You are essentially saying "Anything could happen". That is an undefeatable argument.
No matter what, everythign in star trek is realistic because of a "time" factor? You're saying the very foundation of science could change in 300 years? Because every article you will read on anti-matter says no further amount of research will ever make its development easier. Also, you are saying "Future discoveries WILL prove you wrong". How can you use an absolute in a hypothetical argument? Also, scientists never believe the Earth was flat, that was a social misunderstanding. Science is a lot more complex now than it use to be, we have far more understanding than we did then, and you wont be seeing major theories like evolution all of a sudden "Ending up wrong all along".

I can not, and will not debate against the "Magic" argument. You have essentially thrown physics out the window, saying "Anything can happen in 300 years". So what is there to debate? You can throw out any number, any technology, and say "Well, its 300 years".

Either way, this entire argument is moot. You're forcing "Realistic" values onto star-wars, whereas Star Trek gets "Magic" values because of its inherent technobabble and the "Time" factor. You have stacked the deck in your favor. I'm done.

And you're misunderstanding my statement, though perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I did not intend to say that literally anything is impossible. I am, however, saying that understandings of science change and evolve, and that current understandings have been proven wrong before.

That does not mean that anything is possible, or that Trek can do anything it wants, it just means that using our current understandings of science and our current levels of technology to say that Trek can't have something that it has clearly shown it DOES have is inherently flawed.

Your argument is basically saying that Trek can't have M/AM technology because our current understanding of anti-matter and its creation do not allow for anything remotely close to practical use, despite the fact that anti-matter has been repeatedly shown to be in common use throughout Trek. I am saying that that is completely nonsensical, because it is clearly shown to exist in Trek.

The correct conclusion is not that every instance of anti-matter in Trek is wrong (which is my understanding of what your argument is saying - if I'm wrong, please correct me). The correct conclusion would be that, at least in the ST universe, our current understanding of anti-matter and its generation are wrong or insufficiently developed, and that future discoveries will make anti-matter technology not only feasible but highly practical.

My argument is that, predicting future technology and science, and saying that any one thing is possible or impossible, based solely on current understandings of science and technology, under the assumption that everything we know is all that there is to know, and that what we do know is correct, is inherently flawed, because we cannot say for sure that future discoveries will not change or completely contradict everything we currently know and understand about the universe.

Does this mean that Trek can do anything? No. Trek has not demonstrated the ability to do anything (excluding Q and his ilk, anyway). It just means that saying that what we see in the Star Trek universe is impossible in the Star Trek universe, despite the fact that we see it, based solely on current understandings of technology is wrong. If we see something happen in the Star Trek universe, clearly, it is possible in the Star Trek universe, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Basically, you're saying that it cannot happen in Star Trek, even though we see it happen in Star Trek, because current science says it cannot happen. That is just wrong, because we see it happen. That would be no different than me saying that the Death Star cannot blow up planets, because current science says there's nothing that can achieve that kind of energy output with the size available to the Death Star. I would be wrong, because the Death Star clearly blows up planets, we see it happen. Just because current understandings of science say something is impossible or unfeasible, it does not mean that they will always be impossible or unfeasible in real life, let alone in a science fiction universe set 150-350+ years in the future, or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Current understandings of science and technology can be applied, yes, but they cannot overrule what we see happen on-screen, because we are dealing with societies that are exponentially more advanced than we are, and have exponentially greater knowledge and understanding of the universe than we do now.

[Zyrious]

And you're misunderstanding my statement, though perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I did not intend to say that literally anything is impossible. I am, however, saying that understandings of science change and evolve, and that current understandings have been proven wrong before.

That does not mean that anything is possible, or that Trek can do anything it wants, it just means that using our current understandings of science and our current levels of technology to say that Trek can't have something that it has clearly shown it DOES have is inherently flawed.

Your argument is basically saying that Trek can't have M/AM technology because our current understanding of anti-matter and its creation do not allow for anything remotely close to practical use, despite the fact that anti-matter has been repeatedly shown to be in common use throughout Trek. I am saying that that is completely nonsensical, because it is clearly shown to exist in Trek.

The correct conclusion is not that every instance of anti-matter in Trek is wrong (which is my understanding of what your argument is saying - if I'm wrong, please correct me). The correct conclusion would be that, at least in the ST universe, our current understanding of anti-matter and its generation are wrong or insufficiently developed, and that future discoveries will make anti-matter technology not only feasible but highly practical.

My argument is that, predicting future technology and science, and saying that any one thing is possible or impossible, based solely on current understandings of science and technology, under the assumption that everything we know is all that there is to know, and that what we do know is correct, is inherently flawed, because we cannot say for sure that future discoveries will not change or completely contradict everything we currently know and understand about the universe.

Does this mean that Trek can do anything? No. Trek has not demonstrated the ability to do anything (excluding Q and his ilk, anyway). It just means that saying that what we see in the Star Trek universe is impossible in the Star Trek universe, despite the fact that we see it, based solely on current understandings of technology is wrong. If we see something happen in the Star Trek universe, clearly, it is possible in the Star Trek universe, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Basically, you're saying that it cannot happen in Star Trek, even though we see it happen in Star Trek, because current science says it cannot happen. That is just wrong, because we see it happen. That would be no different than me saying that the Death Star cannot blow up planets, because current science says there's nothing that can achieve that kind of energy output with the size available to the Death Star. I would be wrong, because the Death Star clearly blows up planets, we see it happen. Just because current understandings of science say something is impossible or unfeasible, it does not mean that they will always be impossible or unfeasible in real life, let alone in a science fiction universe set 150-350+ years in the future, or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Current understandings of science and technology can be applied, yes, but they cannot overrule what we see happen on-screen, because we are dealing with societies that are exponentially more advanced than we are, and have exponentially greater knowledge and understanding of the universe than we do now.

First, my point was the federation could not use *a lot* of anti-matter. Not that it didnt use it. But I will concede my point because this will go on, and on, and on, forever.

And you're right, a death-star can destroy a planet almost completely. In half a second, nonetheless. A Monolith capable of powering a superlaser (and recharging it rather quickly as seen in RotJ) and thousands of turbolasers dotted around its entire surface, and maintaining a deflector shield that covers the entire hull, and operating a hyperdrive capable of moving the 160km station, and operating engines capable of moving the ship rapidly through a star system, and it can be built in roughly 10 years as well (By the time of the OT, its obvious the empire's economy is much better. The second Deathstar is constructed very quickly, and is almost finished by RotJ, and half its systems are already operational.)

That's no small feat, and is a sign that the Empire has access to very powerful power-generation capabilites. So i think giving low values to other Imperial weapons may be pushing logic beyond its bounds i think. Not to mention, the Empire is capable of setting up shields (Endor Shield Generator) That can not only be projected into orbit, but are largely inpenetrable (ships could not even approach until the shield was down). This would no doubt require a good amount of Energy. Are you trying to tell me the Empire is having its ships use pee-shooters while it has power-generation capabilities for weapons as strong-as, if not stronger, than federation phasers and torpedo's?

And then there is Imperial ground troops. They have millions upon millions of troops with cloning facilities that have been pumping them out since the prequels (G-Level canon). They can completely invade a federation planet fairly rapidly. So whatever the federations weapons capabilities, how do they stop the empire once they are on the ground without vaporizing their own cities?

[Ilithi_Dragon]

First, my point was the federation could not use *a lot* of anti-matter. Not that it didnt use it. But I will concede my point because this will go on, and on, and on, forever.

Ah, I see. And yes, it would go on and on and on if you continued to hold to that argument, because Trek clearly shows the common use of anti-matter. If Trek hadn't shown such common use of anti-matter, I would agree that your position would have merit, but it HAS shown common use of anti-matter.

And you're right, a death-star can destroy a planet almost completely. In half a second, nonetheless. A Monolith capable of powering a superlaser (and recharging it rather quickly as seen in RotJ) and thousands of turbolasers dotted around its entire surface, and maintaining a deflector shield that covers the entire hull, and operating a hyperdrive capable of moving the 160km station, and operating engines capable of moving the ship rapidly through a star system, and it can be built in roughly 10 years as well (By the time of the OT, its obvious the empire's economy is much better. The second Deathstar is constructed very quickly, and is almost finished by RotJ, and half its systems are already operational.)

That's no small feat, and is a sign that the Empire has access to very powerful power-generation capabilites. So i think giving low values to other Imperial weapons may be pushing logic beyond its bounds i think. Not to mention, the Empire is capable of setting up shields (Endor Shield Generator) That can not only be projected into orbit, but are largely inpenetrable (ships could not even approach until the shield was down). This would no doubt require a good amount of Energy. Are you trying to tell me the Empire is having its ships use pee-shooters while it has power-generation capabilities for weapons as strong-as, if not stronger, than federation phasers and torpedo's?

Yes, destroying a planet is no mean feat, BUT we don't know how the DS's superlaser works. Many assume that it is no more than a direct energy application weapon, but that is far from the only conclusion (and unless I'm mistaken, a direct energy application weapon of such power would actually burn a whole through the planet before making it explode).

As for the recharge time in RotJ, we never actually saw it fire at full strength (if it was a direct energy application weapon capable of blowing up a planet, and fired at that same strength at a starship, we WOULD see the beam come out the other side), so gaging it's recharge time after a full-power blast is not really possible with the data we have (and one could argue that a full-scale blast would take a considerable amount of time to recharge, given the fact that Tarkin opted to orbit around the gas giant to attack Yavin, instead of just blowing it up with the superlaser).

I would argue that the power generation technology the Empire is capable of fitting on a planetary installation or inside of a battlestation the size of the Death Star is no doubt considerable, but that the power generation technology capable of being fitted inside of a starship, with a reasonable-duration fuel supply, is more limited.

Actually, I think we can get a rough idea of at least the first DS's operational power output, by measuring the size of the fireball generated when it explodes. I'll start looking into that now.

[Himser]

ok ill show you assumptions on both sides

Phasers/ ground combat

Type III phaser rifle

according to the St vs SW it does 1.05 megajouls per second .. that is exaccaly ( to follow your coal power plant style) 1.263756 Oz of coal or 35 grams of coal

( the wepon can put out less then 1/4 of the energy as i can shovaling coal with a small shovel per second)

SDN- bad accersy, bad design, looks flimsy,

( assumes no autoaiming, flimsy means breackable, because it assumes no auto aiming it sais can onlyy effectvly hit at 50-100 yards, assumes that full auto is worse then semi auto )
{ 50-100 yards for any wepon sutch as this is faitrly generous ( comming from someone that deals with many RL wepons and firearms), also any oerson can fire semi auto just as fast as a full auto can fire }

ST vs SW - makes 1.05 megajouls seem like a lot, autoaim( doesent explain how they miss oftaon with this ultimate auto aim) , very light ( :) yes this is good) and many options ( less then type I and II but still many more then a blaster

assumes auto aiming works great, assumes 1.05 megajouls is lots, and the last 3 paragraphs ( http://www.phasers.net/2360/type3.htm) also assumes that a phaser vaperize people even tho just a little farther down the page sais that these wepons disrupt the phase of atoms ( its safter to say when they vaperise they send to anouther phase then to acculy turn to vapor lol but both are assumpions)

and like usual they make up numbers based on these assumptions to make their claim look good ( SDN does this a lot as well


remember that 1.05 megajouls is rated at 86.5% ( so less then 1.05 megajouls ) according to ST- vs SW

also SW has machine guns and ST doesent. ST also does not seem to have any heavy vehicals or wepons

OK now for something else

Armor

St vs SW states that federatoon whers sharpnal armor .. as it is barly seen but possable. we can say this is correct athough it doesent protect vs phasers and other energy wepons ( klingons do where armor mostly metel and if i recall correctly can somewhat protect vs energy .. but not very well )

Stormtroopers in SW vs ST is based entirly on the low budjet episode 4,5,6 nothing from 1,2,3 no real facts present itself about the armorother then maby shrapnal and dammage reduction more then prevention.

SDN uses non canon support .. thus all assumptions lol

Now shilds starships

ST vs SW ..nothing on shilds .. exept speulation about shilds to shilds and object to shilds( also lots of assumptions on this page lol

SDN - many assumptions, many many i should rather say .. but many stats are backed up by ST episods athough like ST vs SW many numbers are based on assumptions in the first place

( one example is SDN states that ST cannot open holes in their shilds and then goes into a math frenzy stating that because of this shilds are fequency based and let mutch energy into it .. its entire analasis is baed upon that transporters cannot go through shilds this is an assumption because there may be other reasons that they cant go through shilds as MABY ( assumption on my part) the stream may be disrupted with would not be pretty upon arrival)

and ill proide more bashing of both ST vs SW and SDN if you want but im busy as of now ..

[Zyrious]

Ah, I see. And yes, it would go on and on and on if you continued to hold to that argument, because Trek clearly shows the common use of anti-matter. If Trek hadn't shown such common use of anti-matter, I would agree that your position would have merit, but it HAS shown common use of anti-matter.



Yes, destroying a planet is no mean feat, BUT we don't know how the DS's superlaser works. Many assume that it is no more than a direct energy application weapon, but that is far from the only conclusion (and unless I'm mistaken, a direct energy application weapon of such power would actually burn a whole through the planet before making it explode).

As for the recharge time in RotJ, we never actually saw it fire at full strength (if it was a direct energy application weapon capable of blowing up a planet, and fired at that same strength at a starship, we WOULD see the beam come out the other side), so gaging it's recharge time after a full-power blast is not really possible with the data we have (and one could argue that a full-scale blast would take a considerable amount of time to recharge, given the fact that Tarkin opted to orbit around the gas giant to attack Yavin, instead of just blowing it up with the superlaser).

I would argue that the power generation technology the Empire is capable of fitting on a planetary installation or inside of a battlestation the size of the Death Star is no doubt considerable, but that the power generation technology capable of being fitted inside of a starship, with a reasonable-duration fuel supply, is more limited.

Actually, I think we can get a rough idea of at least the first DS's operational power output, by measuring the size of the fireball generated when it explodes. I'll start looking into that now.

Remember that the planetary shield generator was internally powered. It had no external power source, so it had to have moderate size. And though they may not be able to get the DS'es power supply onto a 1.6 km starship, They may be able to get a smaller version that still holds quite a lot of power for the Turbolasers. A Star Destroyer has no need to power thousands of Turbolasers, huge engines and opening a stable hyperspace corridor for a 125km-160km space station, so its power requirements would be lower.

Either way, i think you are severely underpowering the turbolasers (and deflector shields) of the star destroyer, as it is apparent the Empire does have the technoligcal know-how to give their ships a strong bite.

And i think you missed it, so i'll post it again - Strategically, lets just settle for now that the Empire doesnt quite match up Weapons wise (though i disagree), how do you stop them however, if they still manage to get troops onto the ground of federation worlds? (With use of blockade runners and fast-movement cruiers to breach front lines, or use decoys to get transports past federation ships. Hypothetical situation). Yes, A starship could bomb them, but then they would vaporize their own cities in the process. Are you saying the federation would nuke millions of its own to stop the empire?

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Remember that the planetary shield generator was internally powered. It had no external power source, so it had to have moderate size. And though they may not be able to get the DS'es power supply onto a 1.6 km starship, They may be able to get a smaller version that still holds quite a lot of power for the Turbolasers. A Star Destroyer has no need to power thousands of Turbolasers, huge engines and opening a stable hyperspace corridor for a 125km-160km space station, so its power requirements would be lower.

That's possible, but it's hard to say for sure, since we know so little about Imperial reactor tech, how scaling it to different sizes effect its output, the size and number of reactors on an ISD, etc. Judging power requirements for hyperspace are even more difficult, because we have no idea how hyperdrive works, or how much energy it requires. Jumping a larger object into hyperspace would logically require more energy, but we don't know how much more, nor how speed and mass scale for energy requirements once an object is in hyperspace.

It'd be like trying to scale a ST ship's output based on its warp drive; we simply don't know enough about the tech to make any kind of power requirement judgement based on it, other than "a lot."

Either way, i think you are severely underpowering the turbolasers (and deflector shields) of the star destroyer, as it is apparent the Empire does have the technoligcal know-how to give their ships a strong bite.

I could be underestimating them, and I admit that I do have had a tendency to shoot for a lower-end output in response to the tendency of many pro-Wars opponents to shoot for the high-end estimations. That said, I still don't think the yields SW weaponry have displayed compares to the yields displayed by ST weaponry.


And i think you missed it, so i'll post it again - Strategically, lets just settle for now that the Empire doesnt quite match up Weapons wise (though i disagree), how do you stop them however, if they still manage to get troops onto the ground of federation worlds? (With use of blockade runners and fast-movement cruiers to breach front lines, or use decoys to get transports past federation ships. Hypothetical situation). Yes, A starship could bomb them, but then they would vaporize their own cities in the process. Are you saying the federation would nuke millions of its own to stop the empire?

Yeah, I missed it. Assuming the Empire could get troops on the ground (and I don't think we've ever actually seen any fast-moving troop transports in SW), we don't know enough about ST ground forces to say how they would fair, because we simply haven't seen enough of them. We do know that, in the mid-23rd Century, Starfleet forces were equipped with photon grenade launchers, essentially mortars that launched micro photon torpedoes artillery-style, which demonstrated considerable yield (see here for details (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWground.html#Grenades)). What we saw on AR-558 was a small outpost that was under-manned, ill-equipped, and under-gunned, so using it as a baseline for Starfleet ground combat won't yield accurate results.

Additionally, ST weapons have showed the ability to be used with extreme precision, even at high yields. We know that phasers, for example, cause disruption effects at higher yields, phase-shifting matter out of sync with the rest of the universe as it vaporizes them, drastically reducing collateral damage effects. Torpedoes, as well, have demonstrated the ability to focus and contain their explosive effects to a very small area (presumably through the use of high-powered throw-away shield and forcefield generators, which would be unsurprising given the use of such shield generators to protect the torpedo while in flight), so orbital bombardments, while undoubtedly devastating, could still be made with a certain degree of precision, reducing collateral damage.

That said, we still can't really compare ST ground combat to SW ground combat, because we simply haven't seen enough of the former.

[Zyrious]

That's possible, but it's hard to say for sure, since we know so little about Imperial reactor tech, how scaling it to different sizes effect its output, the size and number of reactors on an ISD, etc. Judging power requirements for hyperspace are even more difficult, because we have no idea how hyperdrive works, or how much energy it requires. Jumping a larger object into hyperspace would logically require more energy, but we don't know how much more, nor how speed and mass scale for energy requirements once an object is in hyperspace.

It'd be like trying to scale a ST ship's output based on its warp drive; we simply don't know enough about the tech to make any kind of power requirement judgement based on it, other than "a lot."



I could be underestimating them, and I admit that I do have had a tendency to shoot for a lower-end output in response to the tendency of many pro-Wars opponents to shoot for the high-end estimations. That said, I still don't think the yields SW weaponry have displayed compares to the yields displayed by ST weaponry.




Yeah, I missed it. Assuming the Empire could get troops on the ground (and I don't think we've ever actually seen any fast-moving troop transports in SW), we don't know enough about ST ground forces to say how they would fair, because we simply haven't seen enough of them. We do know that, in the mid-23rd Century, Starfleet forces were equipped with photon grenade launchers, essentially mortars that launched micro photon torpedoes artillery-style, which demonstrated considerable yield (see here for details (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWground.html#Grenades)). What we saw on AR-558 was a small outpost that was under-manned, ill-equipped, and under-gunned, so using it as a baseline for Starfleet ground combat won't yield accurate results.

Additionally, ST weapons have showed the ability to be used with extreme precision, even at high yields. We know that phasers, for example, cause disruption effects at higher yields, phase-shifting matter out of sync with the rest of the universe as it vaporizes them, drastically reducing collateral damage effects. Torpedoes, as well, have demonstrated the ability to focus and contain their explosive effects to a very small area (presumably through the use of high-powered throw-away shield and forcefield generators, which would be unsurprising given the use of such shield generators to protect the torpedo while in flight), so orbital bombardments, while undoubtedly devastating, could still be made with a certain degree of precision, reducing collateral damage.

That said, we still can't really compare ST ground combat to SW ground combat, because we simply haven't seen enough of the former.

Phase shifting matter ouf ot the universe? Where is your canonocal source for this.

Photon Launchers? If they had this kind of fire-support, why has it never been used against the Borg, or Against the dominion or cardassians in ground conflicts? With later graphics technology, in ST Enterprise it is shown that when fired upon the environment, Starship Phasers have a huge collateral effect, emmitting large shockwaves/blast waves at high-yields (Episode where they test phasers, forgot which one). While it is in the past, i dont think there is any way you could make phasers do something different then that at high yields unless you changed the physics of how phasers worked in the future.

And ground combat is certainly important if we are to do a Versus, as it is half the battle, especially with star wars, as they are bound to take control of tactical locations in order to hamper the federation in space. Including making an attack on Earth itself. Hyperspace is clearly faster than Warp, and ships cannot engage others in Hyperspace. I would wager Hyperspace is the equivelant to Slip-stream amped up a bit. So its possible a small fleet of Star Destroyers could drop out in close Orbit (Similiar Hoth, they drop out in orbit, and the rebels are alerted) and begin immediate troop drops. Obviously, some will be destroyed, but a good portion would get through. And as a large portion of Earth at this point is Urban and populated, firing torpedo's would be advised against, as would trying to pick of individual soldiers with a phaser. Your bound to wipe out a small city or friendly platoon in the process.

This is of course, assuming the Federation somehow has yields capable of outright wiping out a Star Destroyer Fleet. I however think The Empire is a bit stronger than that. Each Individual Turbolaser may not be 800 gigatons, but the combined firepower of all of its turbolasers, use of its tractor beams, and ion canons, including support from each SD's 75 Fighter Squadron compliment should be enough to stand up to a federation fleet.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Phase shifting matter ouf ot the universe? Where is your canonocal source for this.

Well, there's the vaporization of humanoids and other objects, with little or no effect on the surrounding objects or people (total vaporization of a person-sized object would generate a lot of heat, light, etc. and cause a fair degree of collateral damage). The TMs and encyclopedias also clearly state as much, though they're not strictly canon, and I seem to recall the mention of their phasic properties on screen before... I'll have to look for the reference, though.

Photon Launchers? If they had this kind of fire-support, why has it never been used against the Borg, or Against the dominion or cardassians in ground conflicts?

Photon grenade launchers. In TOS, they were demonstrated to be more or less an uber-mortar. They were also referenced in TNG, DS9 and Voyager, with sufficient numbers being stockpiled on Earth to "equip an entire army," according to Leyton. As for use against the Borg, we've rarely, if ever, seen proper ground combat against the Borg; almost all of it has been shipboard combat. It was made very clear in TOS that 1200 meters was very close range for a photon grenade, enough for a redshirt to question Kirk about firing one at a target that close. That's not the kind of weapon you lob around the corner on a starship. Against the Dominion and Cardassians... They probably WERE used, we just never saw them. The only ground combat we saw in the Dominion War was the siege of AR-558, which as I said previously, was under-manned, under-equipped and under-gunned. We don't actually see any other ground combat against the Cardassians or Dominion, not any proper battles, anyway.


With later graphics technology, in ST Enterprise it is shown that when fired upon the environment, Starship Phasers have a huge collateral effect, emmitting large shockwaves/blast waves at high-yields (Episode where they test phasers, forgot which one). While it is in the past, i dont think there is any way you could make phasers do something different then that at high yields unless you changed the physics of how phasers worked in the future.

It should be noted that those weren't phaseRs, they were phase cannos, without the R. While the specifics of that are debatable, Worf noted that Phasers hadn't been invented prior to the 23rd Century, and that the phase cannons demonstrated decidedly more limited effects than phasers (though some of that could be chalked up to early usage of the technology). There's no way of knowing for certain whether or not phase cannons have the same phasing properties as phasers, though they have not demonstrated it.

And ground combat is certainly important if we are to do a Versus, as it is half the battle, especially with star wars, as they are bound to take control of tactical locations in order to hamper the federation in space. Including making an attack on Earth itself.

Never said ground combat wasn't important. I said that we have very limited information on Starfleet ground combat capabilities, though we do know, from various references in the episode and to ground combat tech and forces in other episodes, that the combat we saw in "The Siege of AR-558" was far from a full demonstration of Starfleet's ground combat capabilities.


Hyperspace is clearly faster than Warp, and ships cannot engage others in Hyperspace. I would wager Hyperspace is the equivelant to Slip-stream amped up a bit. So its possible a small fleet of Star Destroyers could drop out in close Orbit (Similiar Hoth, they drop out in orbit, and the rebels are alerted) and begin immediate troop drops. Obviously, some will be destroyed, but a good portion would get through.


The speed of hyperdrive is still debatable, since there is no clear reference to the actual size, in physical dimensions, of the Empire or the Republic. Then there's the Tatooine-Geonosis trip, which covered a distance of 'less than a parsec', according to Amidala. And it took them something like 21 hours for the trip (which they wouldn't exactly be taking their time on, since they were in a hurry to save Obi Wan). Even at best estimates for the trip, Amidala's ship tops out at less than 2,000c, hardly something capable of crossing vast trans-galactic distances (see here (http://st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html) for the analysis). Even if we bump the distance up to what a parsec would be for a planet with Jupiter's orbit, the ship would still top out at less than 10,000c.


And as a large portion of Earth at this point is Urban and populated, firing torpedo's would be advised against, as would trying to pick of individual soldiers with a phaser. Your bound to wipe out a small city or friendly platoon in the process.

Again, as I've said, Trek weapons have demonstrated themselves to be capable of a fair degree of precision targeting. But then, if there is a concern about collateral damage, one could simple set a ship's phasers to widebeam stun and blanket the area with stun beams. Minimal collateral damage for maximum effect, though how effective that would be against stormtroopers in armor is impossible to say.

[Zyrious]

Well, there's the vaporization of humanoids and other objects, with little or no effect on the surrounding objects or people (total vaporization of a person-sized object would generate a lot of heat, light, etc. and cause a fair degree of collateral damage). The TMs and encyclopedias also clearly state as much, though they're not strictly canon, and I seem to recall the mention of their phasic properties on screen before... I'll have to look for the reference, though.



Photon grenade launchers. In TOS, they were demonstrated to be more or less an uber-mortar. They were also referenced in TNG, DS9 and Voyager, with sufficient numbers being stockpiled on Earth to "equip an entire army," according to Leyton. As for use against the Borg, we've rarely, if ever, seen proper ground combat against the Borg; almost all of it has been shipboard combat. It was made very clear in TOS that 1200 meters was very close range for a photon grenade, enough for a redshirt to question Kirk about firing one at a target that close. That's not the kind of weapon you lob around the corner on a starship. Against the Dominion and Cardassians... They probably WERE used, we just never saw them. The only ground combat we saw in the Dominion War was the siege of AR-558, which as I said previously, was under-manned, under-equipped and under-gunned. We don't actually see any other ground combat against the Cardassians or Dominion, not any proper battles, anyway.




It should be noted that those weren't phaseRs, they were phase cannos, without the R. While the specifics of that are debatable, Worf noted that Phasers hadn't been invented prior to the 23rd Century, and that the phase cannons demonstrated decidedly more limited effects than phasers (though some of that could be chalked up to early usage of the technology). There's no way of knowing for certain whether or not phase cannons have the same phasing properties as phasers, though they have not demonstrated it.



Never said ground combat wasn't important. I said that we have very limited information on Starfleet ground combat capabilities, though we do know, from various references in the episode and to ground combat tech and forces in other episodes, that the combat we saw in "The Siege of AR-558" was far from a full demonstration of Starfleet's ground combat capabilities.





The speed of hyperdrive is still debatable, since there is no clear reference to the actual size, in physical dimensions, of the Empire or the Republic. Then there's the Tatooine-Geonosis trip, which covered a distance of 'less than a parsec', according to Amidala. And it took them something like 21 hours for the trip (which they wouldn't exactly be taking their time on, since they were in a hurry to save Obi Wan). Even at best estimates for the trip, Amidala's ship tops out at less than 2,000c, hardly something capable of crossing vast trans-galactic distances (see here (http://st-v-sw.net/STSWaotcparsec.html) for the analysis). Even if we bump the distance up to what a parsec would be for a planet with Jupiter's orbit, the ship would still top out at less than 10,000c.




Again, as I've said, Trek weapons have demonstrated themselves to be capable of a fair degree of precision targeting. But then, if there is a concern about collateral damage, one could simple set a ship's phasers to widebeam stun and blanket the area with stun beams. Minimal collateral damage for maximum effect, though how effective that would be against stormtroopers in armor is impossible to say.

It would also have 0 effect on AT-ST's and AT-AT's.

As for the vaporization, are you sure you couldnt chalk that up to just simple Sci-fi effects, and not actually trying to be totally realistic? Trying to suggest a phaser to actually phase something out of the universe..Well, that would first require changing the laws of physics and quantom physics, and how the entire universe works...

As for your speed analysis. What? How do you even know how long the trip took? Was there a clock displayed that i missed? Further - Obi Wan took a trip from the core world system of Coruscant to the very edge of the galaxy, Kamino, in a very short time-span (Comparing to other events occuring, couldnt be any more than 3 days time). If that isnt fast, nothing is.

Also, starships capable of Wide-Spread beams reaching down to a planet? isnt that a bit obsurd? We're reallly hitting the limits of logic imo.

Also, as a final note on speed, please note that George Lucas has consistently made the mistake in using "Parsec" as a term of "time" in Star Wars, not a unit of Measurement. See: Star Wars: A New Hope "I made the kessel run in less than 12 parsec's".

I think your biggest issue is you using st-vs-sw. It's the pro-trek version of SDN.

[starshipcaptain]

i always wonder why SW always had highs and gaint glowing tobes which could be some power sourse.

[vp21ct]

I have been going through scenarios in my head and have come to one conclusion. Trek wins.

My arguments (and counter arguments)

Star Ship power:
Star trek ships are seen as having less powerful reactors to Star Wars vessels, but i believe i have found the reason why. Star Trek ships run a majority more subsystems at once than star wars vessels, and are capable of far more extreme manuvers (that takes ALOT of power). Star Wars ships also seem to be dominated by their reactors, roughly 1/4 of the mass of an ISD is its reactor, where as the warp core takes up only 1 section on 3 decs on the Galaxy, and the fusion reactors are roughly the size of a large shuttle.

Logistics:
Here star trek losses, but putes up one hell of a fight. Star Wars posseses and increadable number of planets and speices, and the Empire posseses a fleet in the Hundred Thousands. The Federation, by comparasin is a dwarf. But, the federation is not geared for war, they have not dedicated as much of their economy to a war effort, and have only truly done so once (the Dominion War). It is my belief that if the Federation were to truly attempt to do so they could crank out ships bigger and faster than the empire by a factor of nearly 10 to 1. They are so industrially powerful that they can afford not to pay for anything, and still have an almost completely utopian society. That said, they would eventualy fall to the empire, as they have a whole Galaxy to work with. Which brings me to...

Territory:
The Star wars galaxy has never been measured, however i have done some work and I have come to the conclusion that it is much smaller than our own galaxy (ie, the star trek galaxy), That means that the size difference between the empire and the federation is not as severe as once believed (though it is still pretty severe). please feel free to make youre own calculations and tell me what you come up with. I came up with SW Gal 2/3 our size

Ground Combat:
This is a hard one to judge, as we seldom got to see this in star trek, however i believe that star trek would win (logistics aside). My reason for saying so is that wonderful invetion, the Phazor. we have seen it stun, we have seen it widen its beam, and we have seen it cut through metal with ease, It can even vaporize an opponent entirely. Star Wars weapons are very limited, kill or stun, and cannot widen their beam, are severly size limited (ie, pistol only kills unarmored troop, rifle: armored troop, bigger: vehicles). I have no doubts in my mind that a phazor, set to maximum setting, can take down even an ATAT. All said though, star trek would lose due to logistics.

Weapons:
Star Wars has some badass weapons, but don't let the Super Lasor confuse you, they have nothing on star trek. Star Trek weapons are full capable of matching star wars turbo-lasors, even those mounted on the ISD. Star Trek weapons are also very perscise, capable of hitting consistently on target (we only ever see a ship miss its mark when there is something wrong with the sensors.) That brings me to....

Defences:
Star Wars may have Star Trek beat here. Star Wars ships suffer very little damage when their sheilds are up, and said sheilds are cabable of taking many, MANY, blasts. However, when they go down, they stay down. Star Trek sheilds can go down and come back up in as little as 5 seaconds, this means that there is little opoutunity to do real gut punches on Star Trek ships, however they are less effective at keeping out all the damage. Star Trek sheilds are also much more general and keep out a wider range of effects, such as...

Special Teck:
Here it is, the last nail in the coffin, and why star trek wins. I'll start with transporters. we know that Transporter technology is as old as the federation itself, and was discovered by Humans even before real Deflector Sheids were. Since we know that navigatoinal sheilds and Deflector sheilds are different, and that Deflector Sheilds are only used in combat, we can assume that the ability to repel a transporter lock was built in to the design, and has been since. This leave star wars at a disadvantage, they have not encountered transporters before, and thus may not be able to repel them with their sheilds. next is replicators, Wich allow longer tours of duty for star trek ships, as well as greator self repair capablilty, we have seen the enterprise and voyager repair themselves from situations that would have put an ISD in drydock for months. Finally, Hollograms. Star Trek has holograms that are literally indistinguishable from the real thing, Star wars on the other hand has holograms as bad as what we have now (just much more available), this allows star trek better deception capabilitys, and makes it so that the empire will have to do to much guess work to be able to win the war.

(do please respond to this if you disagree/agree)

[vp21ct]

Also, as a final note on speed, please note that George Lucas has consistently made the mistake in using "Parsec" as a term of "time" in Star Wars, not a unit of Measurement. See: Star Wars: A New Hope "I made the kessel run in less than 12 parsec's".



no it isn't, it is still a measurement, the kessel run take you through the Maw, a cluster of black holes, i assume you know this. What you may not know is that the faster a hyperdrive is, the closer it can get to a gravity well. "Making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsec's" means that Han didn't have to make as major a coarse correction as most other ships would have to do.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

It would also have 0 effect on AT-ST's and AT-AT's.

Of course, but there was the one Voyager episode, in which they went back in time, and destroyed a semi-truck without completely vaporizing it or causing notable collateral damage to the road and surrounding area, demonstrating that Trek phasers can be dialed down as necessary, allowing for precision strikes against armored vehicles with sufficient energy to generate a target kill without causing significant collateral damage.

As for the vaporization, are you sure you couldnt chalk that up to just simple Sci-fi effects, and not actually trying to be totally realistic? Trying to suggest a phaser to actually phase something out of the universe..Well, that would first require changing the laws of physics and quantom physics, and how the entire universe works...

Not necessarily. We've seen people phase-shifted before, by transporters and other tech, so why not phasers, just in a destructive, non-survivable manner? And if you start chalking things up to 'simple Sci-fi effects', you can open up the door to the manipulation of a LOT of effects to just about anything you want them to be, which isn't something I'm willing to do.

As for your speed analysis. What? How do you even know how long the trip took? Was there a clock displayed that i missed? Further - Obi Wan took a trip from the core world system of Coruscant to the very edge of the galaxy, Kamino, in a very short time-span (Comparing to other events occuring, couldnt be any more than 3 days time). If that isnt fast, nothing is.

First, take a look at the page I linked to on ST-v-SW.net. Yeah, it's a little long and boring, but it does give a pretty good analysis for the time of the trip (though, I would argue that Amidala's ship was closer to shuttle size, and while undoubtedly well-endowed and expensive, wasn't necessarily capable of extremely high speeds, making it far less than an upper speed limit for hyperdrive).

Second, in all the maps we've seen Kamino referenced in, it was well inside the galactic boundary (in the archives, Obi Wan points to an area of the galactic map near the mid-way point between the core and the edge, and the map he shows Yoda clearly indicates plenty of space beyond the point he indicated was Kamino, though to be fair, that was zoomed in a bit). Additionally, Kamino was never established as being at the very edge of the Galaxy, but rather as 'beyond the Outer Rim', which based on Obi Wans preceding question ("is it in the Republic?") suggests the outer boundary of the Republic, rather than the Galaxy. It's about 12 parsecs beyond the Rishi (sp) Maze, whatever and wherever that is.

Also, starships capable of Wide-Spread beams reaching down to a planet? isnt that a bit obsurd? We're reallly hitting the limits of logic imo.

TOS "A Piece of the Action" Spock orders one of the Enterprise's phaser banks set on stun, and it is later fired on the planet.


Also, as a final note on speed, please note that George Lucas has consistently made the mistake in using "Parsec" as a term of "time" in Star Wars, not a unit of Measurement. See: Star Wars: A New Hope "I made the kessel run in less than 12 parsec's".

That was one instance, hardly 'consistent', and in the case in AotC, was clearly meant as a unit of distance measure, not time. Further, the script and the novelization (which are supported by Obi-Wan's reaction on-screen) both make Han's comment to be made-up nonsense meant to impress Luke.


I think your biggest issue is you using st-vs-sw. It's the pro-trek version of SDN.

Not so much pro-Trek, the guy often goes to great lengths to give low-end yields for Trek, while using higher-end yields for Wars (though not always, he tends to use averages of his figures for both more often than not, while leaning to low-end with Trek and high-end with Wars). I've read the whole site (I think... there might be a page or two I haven't stumbled across yet), much of it multiple times.

I don't agree with all his figures, though, and my own for Trek are actually a bit higher than his, considerably so in some cases. There's stuff I disagree with him about SW equipment as well, some of it in favor of SW (though I can't recall what, atm. It's quarter after 12 here, after all. } : = 8 P ).

[Zyrious]

I have been going through scenarios in my head and have come to one conclusion. Trek wins.

My arguments (and counter arguments)

Star Ship power:
Star trek ships are seen as having less powerful reactors to Star Wars vessels, but i believe i have found the reason why. Star Trek ships run a majority more subsystems at once than star wars vessels, and are capable of far more extreme manuvers (that takes ALOT of power). Star Wars ships also seem to be dominated by their reactors, roughly 1/4 of the mass of an ISD is its reactor, where as the warp core takes up only 1 section on 3 decs on the Galaxy, and the fusion reactors are roughly the size of a large shuttle.

Logistics:
Here star trek losses, but putes up one hell of a fight. Star Wars posseses and increadable number of planets and speices, and the Empire posseses a fleet in the Hundred Thousands. The Federation, by comparasin is a dwarf. But, the federation is not geared for war, they have not dedicated as much of their economy to a war effort, and have only truly done so once (the Dominion War). It is my belief that if the Federation were to truly attempt to do so they could crank out ships bigger and faster than the empire by a factor of nearly 10 to 1. They are so industrially powerful that they can afford not to pay for anything, and still have an almost completely utopian society. That said, they would eventualy fall to the empire, as they have a whole Galaxy to work with. Which brings me to...

Territory:
The Star wars galaxy has never been measured, however i have done some work and I have come to the conclusion that it is much smaller than our own galaxy (ie, the star trek galaxy), That means that the size difference between the empire and the federation is not as severe as once believed (though it is still pretty severe). please feel free to make youre own calculations and tell me what you come up with. I came up with SW Gal 2/3 our size

C-Level canon(Lucasfilm, tech manuals, etc. etc.) puts the SW Galaxy at 200,000 lightyears, twice the size of the Milky way (100,000ly). But Dragon doesnt believe in any canon except G-Level.


Special Teck:
Here it is, the last nail in the coffin, and why star trek wins. I'll start with transporters. we know that Transporter technology is as old as the federation itself, and was discovered by Humans even before real Deflector Sheids were. Since we know that navigatoinal sheilds and Deflector sheilds are different, and that Deflector Sheilds are only used in combat, we can assume that the ability to repel a transporter lock was built in to the design, and has been since. This leave star wars at a disadvantage, they have not encountered transporters before, and thus may not be able to repel them with their sheilds. next is replicators, Wich allow longer tours of duty for star trek ships, as well as greator self repair capablilty, we have seen the enterprise and voyager repair themselves from situations that would have put an ISD in drydock for months. Finally, Hollograms. Star Trek has holograms that are literally indistinguishable from the real thing, Star wars on the other hand has holograms as bad as what we have now (just much more available), this allows star trek better deception capabilitys, and makes it so that the empire will have to do to much guess work to be able to win the war.

(do please respond to this if you disagree/agree)

Well, a star trek vessel has to lower its shields to use its transporters, and that would be a very bad thing to do in the heat of battle. Also, dont forget that Star Wars also has Tractor-beams that it could use on any starship that tried to get in range for transporters.

As for holograms, you're 100% right, but we've never seen the federation utilize them in large-scale warfare such as the dominion war, especially in space. I can't imagine they'd do it for the SWvsST war.

Replicators are also a good point, it does give federation star ships longer lasting power, an advantage over Wars, but then wars has better logistics, so it sort of balances out.

[starshipcaptain]

i really dont care whoes better. I bet ST and SW dont even exist in the same demention let alone the same era

[Ilithi_Dragon]

i really dont care whoes better. I bet ST and SW dont even exist in the same demention let alone the same era

Then why are you posting here? Obviously, the matter is of interest to us, so we're posting and reading this. If it's not of interest to you, why make issue of it? You don't have to read the thread.

[starshipcaptain]

its fun to read plain and simple

[Zyrious]

Of course, but there was the one Voyager episode, in which they went back in time, and destroyed a semi-truck without completely vaporizing it or causing notable collateral damage to the road and surrounding area, demonstrating that Trek phasers can be dialed down as necessary, allowing for precision strikes against armored vehicles with sufficient energy to generate a target kill without causing significant collateral damage.

Well, a Truck isnt armored. And as we can see in the Battle of Hoth, the Armor on things like AT-AT's/AT-ST's is very powerful (An AT-AT could not be destroyed by Speeder's Main weapons. Nobody knows why the one that crashed exploded when shot. Dont even think lucas knows).



Not necessarily. We've seen people phase-shifted before, by transporters and other tech, so why not phasers, just in a destructive, non-survivable manner? And if you start chalking things up to 'simple Sci-fi effects', you can open up the door to the manipulation of a LOT of effects to just about anything you want them to be, which isn't something I'm willing to do.
Because Transporters and other tech are actually moving your molecules around through space/subspace, all a phaser is doing is superheating the matter inside your body until you turn to vapor. That's not capable of phase-shifting without a severe change in the laws of physics, unless there is Tech in the phaser the Writers arent telling us about/



First, take a look at the page I linked to on ST-v-SW.net. Yeah, it's a little long and boring, but it does give a pretty good analysis for the time of the trip (though, I would argue that Amidala's ship was closer to shuttle size, and while undoubtedly well-endowed and expensive, wasn't necessarily capable of extremely high speeds, making it far less than an upper speed limit for hyperdrive).
does that not then make this argument moot?


Second, in all the maps we've seen Kamino referenced in, it was well inside the galactic boundary (in the archives, Obi Wan points to an area of the galactic map near the mid-way point between the core and the edge, and the map he shows Yoda clearly indicates plenty of space beyond the point he indicated was Kamino, though to be fair, that was zoomed in a bit). Additionally, Kamino was never established as being at the very edge of the Galaxy, but rather as 'beyond the Outer Rim', which based on Obi Wans preceding question ("is it in the Republic?") suggests the outer boundary of the Republic, rather than the Galaxy. It's about 12 parsecs beyond the Rishi (sp) Maze, whatever and wherever that is.
which referenced maps? I doubt there are many you can use, as most maps are C-level canon, and you hate any canon that isnt G-level canon, as it puts Wars on top. I take it you just mean the map in the movie? I'll see if i can get a screenshot of it...



TOS "A Piece of the Action" Spock orders one of the Enterprise's phaser banks set on stun, and it is later fired on the planet.
does he say "Widespread beam" and stun the entire planet?




That was one instance, hardly 'consistent', and in the case in AotC, was clearly meant as a unit of distance measure, not time. Further, the script and the novelization (which are supported by Obi-Wan's reaction on-screen) both make Han's comment to be made-up nonsense meant to impress Luke.

Clearly? "Less than a parsec away" "Less than an hour away?" it could just as easily be a unit of time rather than measurement, that's never defined, but if we compare it to the word "Parsec" being used in the Star Wars universe previously, it comes off as a unit of time.

Feel free to quote the lines in the script to support your claims however, and i will concede that point



Not so much pro-Trek, the guy often goes to great lengths to give low-end yields for Trek, while using higher-end yields for Wars (though not always, he tends to use averages of his figures for both more often than not, while leaning to low-end with Trek and high-end with Wars). I've read the whole site (I think... there might be a page or two I haven't stumbled across yet), much of it multiple times.

I don't agree with all his figures, though, and my own for Trek are actually a bit higher than his, considerably so in some cases. There's stuff I disagree with him about SW equipment as well, some of it in favor of SW (though I can't recall what, atm. It's quarter after 12 here, after all. } : = 8 P ).

And how do you come up with your figures? And is it just me, or do you disagree with everything that puts Wars on top of trek?

[vp21ct]

Clearly? "Less than a parsec away" "Less than an hour away?" it could just as easily be a unit of time rather than measurement, that's never defined, but if we compare it to the word "Parsec" being used in the Star Wars universe previously, it comes off as a unit of time.



read my counter argument to the "12 parsecs"

[Azurian]

First, take a look at the page I linked to on ST-v-SW.net. Yeah, it's a little long and boring, but it does give a pretty good analysis for the time of the trip (though, I would argue that Amidala's ship was closer to shuttle size, and while undoubtedly well-endowed and expensive, wasn't necessarily capable of extremely high speeds, making it far less than an upper speed limit for hyperdrive).

Hyperspace is more or less like Trans-Warp, where it shifts a ship into another dimension. The only factor would be the engines during use within Trans-warp.


Second, in all the maps we've seen Kamino referenced in, it was well inside the galactic boundary (in the archives, Obi Wan points to an area of the galactic map near the mid-way point between the core and the edge, and the map he shows Yoda clearly indicates plenty of space beyond the point he indicated was Kamino, though to be fair, that was zoomed in a bit). Additionally, Kamino was never established as being at the very edge of the Galaxy, but rather as 'beyond the Outer Rim', which based on Obi Wans preceding question ("is it in the Republic?") suggests the outer boundary of the Republic, rather than the Galaxy. It's about 12 parsecs beyond the Rishi (sp) Maze, whatever and wherever that is.

Outer Rim is the edge of the Galaxy, not the edge of the Republic / Empire.

And yes, Kamino is shown to be at the edge of the SW Galaxy. Rishi's Maze is a Satelilte Galaxy like the Magellan Clouds that orbit the Milky Way.


That was one instance, hardly 'consistent', and in the case in AotC, was clearly meant as a unit of distance measure, not time. Further, the script and the novelization (which are supported by Obi-Wan's reaction on-screen) both make Han's comment to be made-up nonsense meant to impress Luke.

A Parsec is a Unit of Measurement of Distance over Time.



And it should be noted, Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek based off Scientific realism, which has continued on in TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and other ST stories. George Lucas based Star Wars off fantasy with little scientific realism. That's pretty much what we here are trying to discuss, to make that commonality to see whose better than whom.

[Zyrious]

From the Official Lucasfilm maintained Star Wars Databank, and from the "From the Movies" section of the information on kamino:http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/kamino/index.html


Purged from the otherwise complete Jedi Archives is all evidence of the mysterious world of Kamino. A lonely world beyond the Outer Rim and just south of the Rishi Maze

Note: The Rishi Maze is a Dwarf Galaxy that orbits the Star Wars Galaxy. I believe it is even seen on a small computer screen Obi Wan is analyzing in the Jedi Archives.

[Himser]

Hey dragon .. i notice how you do not answer any of my arguments .. are they soo good you cant come up with a reply so you just ignore them ??
\
thats what i'm gonna have to assume ignoring them means...

haha my 35grams of coal is more powerful then a phaser :O

as situated in ST vs SW a parsec is a completly arbitrary term it acculy changes depending where you are in the soler system .. its an obsolete astrology term ( ST vs SW assumes thuis means that a parsect in SW means the same as todays equivlent in astrology, when it clearly in general slang is a time, and btw draghon thats where you get your 21 hours from a calculation whose based entuirely on a arbitrary assumption )

also when YOU use the novels ( the cannon ones) so can we so we KNOW that it takes mui**** to travel 160 light years ( i belive the ST vs SW cannon database ,, your godsend is hurting you .... also from the ST vs SW database we KNOW that the republic is at least 10,000 soler systems large with enouf population be be considered full members this is approximently what 100X the size of the federation at the least) .. also has been in operation for 1000 generations ( and a generation is yes an assumption on my part bur atround 30 years ( generations change in size anyway)

also the whole kamedo thing .. AND the outside the galexy rebel meeting in ESB

also i agree witgh dragon that a phaser must "phase" space its bems never do any real dammage but if someone gest hit they dont burn or anything they just die .. unlike in SW where the blasters create huge ammounts of smoke and burns and dammage.

[nsl1987]

Self Replicating Cloaked mine fields. Nuf said.

[Himser]

Self Replicating Cloaked mine fields. Nuf said.

that is a significant factor .. but the empire does have a nasty habit of charging so all the mines would attack the nearest ship .. so the empire would use a Forlorn hope style combat against this

[Silverspar]

My take on the whole thing. Star Wars geeks can get mad all they want, but all the ISD and TIE Fighters and such, first and foremost, use laser technology, and in TNGs early life, it's already been stated that lasrers are largely ineffective against Federation shielding. Furthermore, ISDs are slow, bulky are not very maneuverable, where as even the largest Federation, Romulan or even Jem'Hdar ship can easily fly circles around many of the Imperial capitol ships.

Ships like that Super Star Destroyer would basically be at the mercy of a small fleet of Federation ships, especially since it's been evident that none of the Imperial ships have shielding that can even take more than two, at most, direct hits, where Federation ships can take a plethora of direct hits before shields fail. Heck, even the Original enterprise took a salvo of nuclear warheads and survived.

The debate in the end, however, I always find funny because Star Wars, none of the technology is even plausible or reallistic. Lasters combining to form a super laser wouldn't work as light just passes through itself. Not saying that Star Trek doesn't have it's faults either, but by and large, Star Trek has a lot of stuff that can be proven, while the tech of Star Wars has been proven to be total fantasy.

[Zyrious]

My take on the whole thing. Star Wars geeks can get mad all they want, but all the ISD and TIE Fighters and such, first and foremost, use laser technology, and in TNGs early life, it's already been stated that lasrers are largely ineffective against Federation shielding. Furthermore, ISDs are slow, bulky are not very maneuverable, where as even the largest Federation, Romulan or even Jem'Hdar ship can easily fly circles around many of the Imperial capitol ships.

Ships like that Super Star Destroyer would basically be at the mercy of a small fleet of Federation ships, especially since it's been evident that none of the Imperial ships have shielding that can even take more than two, at most, direct hits, where Federation ships can take a plethora of direct hits before shields fail. Heck, even the Original enterprise took a salvo of nuclear warheads and survived.

The debate in the end, however, I always find funny because Star Wars, none of the technology is even plausible or reallistic. Lasters combining to form a super laser wouldn't work as light just passes through itself. Not saying that Star Trek doesn't have it's faults either, but by and large, Star Trek has a lot of stuff that can be proven, while the tech of Star Wars has been proven to be total fantasy.

First, i think its widely accepted that Star Wars weapons actually use Plasma... Thats of course, ignoring the Fact how powerful a laser is is totally dependant upon how its construction, how much energy is used to power it, how that energy is used, etc. etc.

Also, a cool little FYI on the Death Star - Lucas originally intended for the deathstar to have a little lens with arrays in which all of the energy from the other lasers would be channeled and focused, and then fired onto the planet. But they decided to toss it for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that that would have been an eyesore.

Also, Star Destroyers are not "slow", it is actually quite the opposite. Star Destroyers main engines pump a lot of juice and are capable of actually keeping up with small manuverable ships such as the Millenium Falcon. He bragged about being able to outrun Imperial Cruisers as if it was a very rare thing as well...

Also, Imperial shielding is actually able to take a plethora of hits, we just dont see any real prolonged firefights with Star Destroyers, the exception of which is RotJ. The SSD is able to withstand the entire full fire of the rebel fleet and maintain most of its shields, it did not even take real damage until the forward shields fell. At which time an A-Wing also broke through and crashed into the bridge.

The other thing about Imperial Shielding - The ship takes ZERO damage while the shields are up. Unlike trek ships in which a portion of energy can breach the shields and cause electrical damage, overload terminals, and even cause minor hull damage. In Star Wars, we see that the ships take no damage from most energy weapons as long as the shields are fully functional. You dont see the bridge shaking left and right while they are engaged in battle.

As far as realism,I'd say its really a tie. We've got some things that are realistic, or that are hard to tell how it'l go in 10,000 years time. Some things are a bit up there though, Death Stars and Lightsabers and Hyperdrive for instance. Same with Star Trek though, we've got transporters, vaporization without vapor, anti-matter more plentiful than sugar, *time travel*, Warp Drive etc. etc., several of those of which are proven impossibilities. Especially Transporters, which as scientists have detailed, the most powerful computer in the universe would not be able to track, contain, and transport every single quantom particle in your body, so it would transport your matter up while leaving behind the very foundation of what keeps everything together. You'd be slush on the other side. Ew...

But again, there's that time factor, some things can change(and some things cant).

[Silverspar]

Umm, Millenium falcon speed wise, was pretty slow. Outflying at dog fighter speed sis not really something I call fast, especially when a Federation starship cruise speed is 1/4 the speed of light at impulse power, and in combat scenario can go as fast as 3/4 the speed of light.

ISD'd definitely do not move that fast, and almsot everytime when it concerns an ISD, one shot to that little bridge module at the top is all it takes and the entire ship goes down. Hell on the SSD that's all it took, and that thing is like over ten miles long I think. In other words too bulky to be effective.

Star Wars weaponry and defense was also based on a combination of things. Lucas basically combined Westerns with Fantasy and World War II dogfighter scenes. Go back and look at it sometime if you really don't believe me, Star Wars is a mix of three genres in one, all of which were popular when Star Wars came out. I think that attributes itself to it's success to.

Furthermore, the energy weapons in Star Wars, left a little burn mark, and most of than not, where people got shot shouldn't of even killed them. A Phaser, or even a Disruptor can totally atomize a target when set at a high frequency. And the only time I've ever heard the mirror in front of the Death Star mentioned was when someone stated in a documentary asking if Star Wars tech would work, then that would be required, so I say Lucas claiming that is probably bogus myself.

Finally, if the weapons were plasma, the intense heat generated alone would burn the hands of the user's alone, not to mention burn a hole straight through the target for those hit by the blasts.

[vp21ct]

Read it, Love it. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run

Parsec, Unit of DISTANCE.
READ THE FRIGGIN BOOKS



Its sad when a trekie beats you with continuity lore.

[Silverspar]

According to that, the script and Lucas, Han was also lying about the falcon travelling through the Kessle Run to, not to mention since it doesn't state the time and just a statement of distance, hehe... well then that really makes the ship much slower in light.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Hey dragon .. i notice how you do not answer any of my arguments .. are they soo good you cant come up with a reply so you just ignore them ??

Actually, I'm usually pressed for time, and can't respond to everything, so I tend to pick the arguments that are the most well-organized and presented, making it quick and easy for me to grasp the poster's points, analyze their argument, and construct a response around that argument. Your posts tend to be less well-organized and disjointed, requiring more time to sort through to pick out the actual points of your argument, and separate them from each other. That's why I haven't often responded to your specific arguments recently, though I will take the time to do so now.


haha my 35grams of coal is more powerful then a phaser :O

You forget that 1. for small arms weapon, that is a fairly considerable amount of energy applied (conisdering that the total kinetic energy of a round from a .45 pistol is in the low kilojoule range) 2. it was never stated that that was the maximum, or even standard level of output for the weapon, or how far above the minimum and below the maximum that output was, and 3. that's the equivalent of detonating 25 grams of TNT on your target every second, which is pretty respectable for a hand weapon.

Or, converting to terms of electrical charge, it would be like getting hit with an electrical discharge of 1.06 million volts for every second the phaser fired (if I have my conversion rate correct... Electricians, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

as situated in ST vs SW a parsec is a completly arbitrary term it acculy changes depending where you are in the soler system .. its an obsolete astrology term ( ST vs SW assumes thuis means that a parsect in SW means the same as todays equivlent in astrology, when it clearly in general slang is a time, and btw draghon thats where you get your 21 hours from a calculation whose based entuirely on a arbitrary assumption )

Yes, it was noted that parsec, as a unit of measure, is totally arbitrary, and that those figures aren't 100% reliable, meaning they aren't 100% conclusive. That doesn't mean that they are entirely invalid, though, because they can give an indication of the vessel's speed.


also when YOU use the novels ( the cannon ones) so can we so we KNOW that it takes mui**** to travel 160 light years

Could you give the reference to that, please? (Which film novelization it comes from, context, etc. - specific quote would be nice, if you can manage it)


( i belive the ST vs SW cannon database ,, your godsend is hurting you .... also from the ST vs SW database we KNOW that the republic is at least 10,000 soler systems large with enouf population be be considered full members this is approximently what 100X the size of the federation at the least) ..

We know that there are around 1 million worlds in the Empire, per the ANH novelization (a statement from Tarkin, iirc), though that doesn't give us any indication of how many of those are populated, and to what extent. Do you have a quote that further specifies the number of inhabited worlds in the Empire?

also has been in operation for 1000 generations ( and a generation is yes an assumption on my part bur atround 30 years ( generations change in size anyway)

We know that the Jedi Order has existed for 25,000 years, and that the Republic was younger than the Jedi Order, putting the Republic's age at something less than 25,000 years (and based on Yoda's comment in the RotS novelization about the Jedi serving the Force long before the Republic, something considerably less than 25,000 years). Then there's the comment about the fall of Darth Bane a millenium ago (RotS novelization again), and the Naboo queen's comment in AotC that the Galaxy hadn't seen war since the Republic's founding, suggesting that the Galactic Republic is actually only some 1,000 years or so old at this point (give or take a few decades), not the 25,000+ years old the EU suggests.


also the whole kamedo thing .. AND the outside the galexy rebel meeting in ESB

But Kamino was never stated to be at the edge of the Galaxy, just beyond the "Outer Rim", which was never stated to be the galactic outer rim, and could just as easily be the outer rim of the Republic (as indicated by the context of the discussion). Further, the map that Obi Wan is referencing in the archives room shows a second galaxy (presumably the Rishi Maze, though I don't think that was ever established), which is much closer to the core of the SW galaxy than it's edge, further supporting the idea that it was not actually at the very edge of the Galaxy (whether south meant out from the core or up and down along the thickness of the galaxy).


also i agree witgh dragon that a phaser must "phase" space its bems never do any real dammage but if someone gest hit they dont burn or anything they just die .. unlike in SW where the blasters create huge ammounts of smoke and burns and dammage.

It should be noted that phasers and disruptors, when not set high enough to reach the threshold for disruption effects (or set high enough that energy is applied to the target faster than it can be phased out), have shown significant thermal effects, including severe burns and the generation of extremely high temperatures.

[Silverspar]

We know that the Jedi Order has existed for 25,000 years, and that the Republic was younger than the Jedi Order, putting the Republic's age at something less than 25,000 years (and based on Yoda's comment in the RotS novelization about the Jedi serving the Force long before the Republic, something considerably less than 25,000 years). Then there's the comment about the fall of Darth Bane a millenium ago (RotS novelization again), and the Naboo queen's comment in AotC that the Galaxy hadn't seen war since the Republic's founding, suggesting that the Galactic Republic is actually only some 1,000 years or so old at this point (give or take a few decades), not the 25,000+ years old the EU suggests.According to Episode 4, the Old Republic was only 1,000 years old, by Obi Wan's wording. Though he just says for a thousand years the Jedis were the keepers of peace, one would have to assume that the Jedi Order became the galactic guardians at the formation of the Old Republic.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

According to Episode 4, the Old Republic was only 1,000 years old, by Obi Wan's wording. Though he just says for a thousand years the Jedis were the keepers of peace, one would have to assume that the Jedi Order became the galactic guardians at the formation of the Old Republic.

Makes sense. Clearly, the 24,000 years prior to the forming of the Republic were some very interesting times, and it would no doubt be fascinating to see what all arose and fell, created and destroyed during that time, though that is a separate matter all together.

That further establishes the Republic's age at 1,000 years, only five times that of the Federation's, instead of the 120+ times the EU would indicate.

And while yes, there certainly was interstellar goings on prior to the founding of the Republic, we don't know to what extent, or for how long. There's nothing that requires the Jedi Order to have been an interestellar organization from its founding, after all, and it could easily date back to the pre-history of one of the many races of the SW galaxy.

[nsl1987]

that is a significant factor .. but the empire does have a nasty habit of charging so all the mines would attack the nearest ship .. so the empire would use a Forlorn hope style combat against this

We are talking about HUGE mine fields here. The Defiant by itself made a mine field of several thousand mines in a day at most. Just think what a few starships could do in say...a week. There would be hundreds of thousands, maybe even over a million in one mine field. The mines were programmed to swarm only about 40 or 50 to a ship, then it's neighbors would replicate new ones, so the mine field would never run out of mines. It would take a massive fleet to detonate every mine in a single mine field at once, and the federation can put up several mine fields in strategic locations. Also you forget that the mines are cloaked. The empire has never heard of cloaking devices. They wouldn't even know what hit them.

[starshipcaptain]

its really hard to tell who would win because ST and SW were not made in the same era about 30 years i tihnk. please correct me if i wrong

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Also you forget that the mines are cloaked. The empire has never heard of cloaking devices. They wouldn't even know what hit them.

Actually, the Empire has heard of cloaking technology, but it apparently requires a fairly large ship/station to be mounted (possibly due to power requirements or size of the cloak, or what-have-you), since the Falcon was considered far too small to have a cloaking device.

The effect is essentially the same, though, since the Empire wouldn't be expecting cloaking devices on objects that small.


its really hard to tell who would win because ST and SW were not made in the same era about 30 years i tihnk. please correct me if i wrong

TOS was made in the late 60s, the first SW episode was produced in the 70s, TNG went up in the late 80s and Trek ran through early 2000, and the last SW movies came out in the late 90s through the early 2000s.

That has little to do with who would win a war between the Empire and the Federation, though. VFX will look better with a newer production, but that alone doesn't affect the in-universe power of something.

[Zyrious]

Umm, Millenium falcon speed wise, was pretty slow. Outflying at dog fighter speed sis not really something I call fast, especially when a Federation starship cruise speed is 1/4 the speed of light at impulse power, and in combat scenario can go as fast as 3/4 the speed of light.

ISD'd definitely do not move that fast, and almsot everytime when it concerns an ISD, one shot to that little bridge module at the top is all it takes and the entire ship goes down. Hell on the SSD that's all it took, and that thing is like over ten miles long I think. In other words too bulky to be effective.

Star Wars weaponry and defense was also based on a combination of things. Lucas basically combined Westerns with Fantasy and World War II dogfighter scenes. Go back and look at it sometime if you really don't believe me, Star Wars is a mix of three genres in one, all of which were popular when Star Wars came out. I think that attributes itself to it's success to.

Furthermore, the energy weapons in Star Wars, left a little burn mark, and most of than not, where people got shot shouldn't of even killed them. A Phaser, or even a Disruptor can totally atomize a target when set at a high frequency. And the only time I've ever heard the mirror in front of the Death Star mentioned was when someone stated in a documentary asking if Star Wars tech would work, then that would be required, so I say Lucas claiming that is probably bogus myself.

Finally, if the weapons were plasma, the intense heat generated alone would burn the hands of the user's alone, not to mention burn a hole straight through the target for those hit by the blasts.

We're not talking about the realism of a Plasma weapon, just the fact than in SW that's what they use (its also established thats what a lightsaber uses, highly focuses and controlled superheated plasma, capable of cutting through any metal or armor instantaneously as seen in its later iterations in the prequels). It'd be like me saying that Phasers are highly unrealistic.(You can't atomize a target by firing a superheated beam at them. You vaporize them. You'd have to detonate a 10 kiloton bomb to start splitting atoms). Doesnt matter, they're still used in Star trek.

Also, the Millenium Falcon is touted as one of the fastest freighters in the Galaxy (And can pursue a Tie Fighter as well, a very fast fighter, in ANH). The Fact that the 1.6km Star Destroyers can keep up is a good indicator of their speed capabilities (they actually almsot overtake it).

[Zyrious]

Read it, Love it. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run

Parsec, Unit of DISTANCE.
READ THE FRIGGIN BOOKS



Its sad when a trekie beats you with continuity lore.

I have read the books, but Dragon said "No EU". Which means your argument is completely pointless. If we had EU in the discussion, Star Trek would have been dead 30 pages ago.

[Zyrious]

We are talking about HUGE mine fields here. The Defiant by itself made a mine field of several thousand mines in a day at most. Just think what a few starships could do in say...a week. There would be hundreds of thousands, maybe even over a million in one mine field. The mines were programmed to swarm only about 40 or 50 to a ship, then it's neighbors would replicate new ones, so the mine field would never run out of mines. It would take a massive fleet to detonate every mine in a single mine field at once, and the federation can put up several mine fields in strategic locations. Also you forget that the mines are cloaked. The empire has never heard of cloaking devices. They wouldn't even know what hit them.


First, the empire has heard of cloaking devices. Though they dont expect it on something small, that doesnt mean they dont have sensors that scan for cloaked objects in general.

Furthermore, mines only work when you have a chokepoint, ala the Gamma Quadrant Wormhole. Otherwise, everyone just warps/hypers by the minefield with a minimum of fuss. And, knowing the Empire, they are fans of sacrificing a single ship to punch a hole through a minefield by flying through it.

[Zyrious]

Makes sense. Clearly, the 24,000 years prior to the forming of the Republic were some very interesting times, and it would no doubt be fascinating to see what all arose and fell, created and destroyed during that time, though that is a separate matter all together.

That further establishes the Republic's age at 1,000 years, only five times that of the Federation's, instead of the 120+ times the EU would indicate.

And while yes, there certainly was interstellar goings on prior to the founding of the Republic, we don't know to what extent, or for how long. There's nothing that requires the Jedi Order to have been an interestellar organization from its founding, after all, and it could easily date back to the pre-history of one of the many races of the SW galaxy.

For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic

A Thousand Generations > A Thousand Years. As i recall, i'll google it later, a generation is roughly accepted as 25-30 years. That's 25-30 times 1000. That places the Old Republic's age at 25-30,000 years.

[TheWon]

I think this will settle the arguement for this round. Star Trek is about what our future could be. Star Wars is about some **** that happen a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

SO if we start now then maybe one day the Federation could be rule. I rather go with something about us. Then some aliens who may or not exist. LOL

[Himser]

Actually, I'm usually pressed for time, and can't respond to everything, so I tend to pick the arguments that are the most well-organized and presented, making it quick and easy for me to grasp the poster's points, analyze their argument, and construct a response around that argument. Your posts tend to be less well-organized and disjointed, requiring more time to sort through to pick out the actual points of your argument, and separate them from each other. That's why I haven't often responded to your specific arguments recently, though I will take the time to do so now.




You forget that 1. for small arms weapon, that is a fairly considerable amount of energy applied (conisdering that the total kinetic energy of a round from a .45 pistol is in the low kilojoule range) 2. it was never stated that that was the maximum, or even standard level of output for the weapon, or how far above the minimum and below the maximum that output was, and 3. that's the equivalent of detonating 25 grams of TNT on your target every second, which is pretty respectable for a hand weapon.

Or, converting to terms of electrical charge, it would be like getting hit with an electrical discharge of 1.06 million volts for every second the phaser fired (if I have my conversion rate correct... Electricians, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).



Yes, it was noted that parsec, as a unit of measure, is totally arbitrary, and that those figures aren't 100% reliable, meaning they aren't 100% conclusive. That doesn't mean that they are entirely invalid, though, because they can give an indication of the vessel's speed.




Could you give the reference to that, please? (Which film novelization it comes from, context, etc. - specific quote would be nice, if you can manage it)




We know that there are around 1 million worlds in the Empire, per the ANH novelization (a statement from Tarkin, iirc), though that doesn't give us any indication of how many of those are populated, and to what extent. Do you have a quote that further specifies the number of inhabited worlds in the Empire?



We know that the Jedi Order has existed for 25,000 years, and that the Republic was younger than the Jedi Order, putting the Republic's age at something less than 25,000 years (and based on Yoda's comment in the RotS novelization about the Jedi serving the Force long before the Republic, something considerably less than 25,000 years). Then there's the comment about the fall of Darth Bane a millenium ago (RotS novelization again), and the Naboo queen's comment in AotC that the Galaxy hadn't seen war since the Republic's founding, suggesting that the Galactic Republic is actually only some 1,000 years or so old at this point (give or take a few decades), not the 25,000+ years old the EU suggests.




But Kamino was never stated to be at the edge of the Galaxy, just beyond the "Outer Rim", which was never stated to be the galactic outer rim, and could just as easily be the outer rim of the Republic (as indicated by the context of the discussion). Further, the map that Obi Wan is referencing in the archives room shows a second galaxy (presumably the Rishi Maze, though I don't think that was ever established), which is much closer to the core of the SW galaxy than it's edge, further supporting the idea that it was not actually at the very edge of the Galaxy (whether south meant out from the core or up and down along the thickness of the galaxy).




It should be noted that phasers and disruptors, when not set high enough to reach the threshold for disruption effects (or set high enough that energy is applied to the target faster than it can be phased out), have shown significant thermal effects, including severe burns and the generation of extremely high temperatures.

Yes i 100% agree that that is a significant ammount if energy .. also .. if i have 1000000 volts and zero amps .. it wont kill me .. if i have .5 of an amp and 1 volt it will .. ( the 10000000 volts is wayyyy more energy .. but less deadly)

also i agree with your statment that a .45 calaber bullet has way less kinetic energy then that 1.05 megajouls .. BUT as part of my argument does ammount iof energy acculy mean anytghing ??? a .22 calaber bullet can kill someone with miniscule ammounts of energy reliced .. that does not mean it is less deadly then that 1.05 megajoule phaser. even tho it uses a total of 1000X less energy

so most of your trek power is greater then SW power arguments are invalid because it depends 1000% how that energy is used now how mutch of it there is .. ( still rememebr that that .22 calaber bullet has very litytle energy behind it yet accorduing to ST id rather fight with a 22 calaber assault rife then a phaser \

i will attempt to find that quote as my internets down .. along with all my bookmarks and everything and using a crappy dial up connection does not leve mutch time to look up stuff ive bookmarked and saved on my other computer. ( monday at latest ) ( i belive it was in SW cannon dataase in yes your hated SDN but i havent seen them make assumtions in the cannon databases they have so go look for it )

also still didnt get your take on ESB how the rebel fleet was outside the galexy

in ST vs SW uin their cannon facts about SW in two spots they say that the republic has 10,000 senitors so ( yes assumpion) that would mean at least 10,000 inhabitted wourlds ( or heavly ppulated as no hevey populated area would allow a not populated, not powerful seniter to have the same powers as the powerful one but tahst an assumpion and common sence)





if for 1000 generations they were the keepers of peace in the old republic .. that means that the old republic is at least 1000 generations old .. we do not know if the jedi were formed 1000 generations ago or the republic was formed 1000 generations ago .. we know they have coencided as one dfor 1000 generations.

also on the darth bane comment .. they stated that he was defeted 1000 years ago ./.yes .. but that does not mean the republic was at war .. it couyld just be the jedi that defeted them and as the jedi are the republics "cops" by any standard. it was a take down of a criminal/ seriel killer more then a war ..

i also belive that in SW cloacking devices that work must be very expensive or not avalible to the public. thus the comment that " no ship that size has a cloacking device " can easaly mean its too expensive for the ship, its a private ship so cvant get one, ( yes it could mean its too big for that ship but you choose to ignore the multitude of other reasons the good captain may have said that comment)

also :P wheres all you quotes for your numbers that you never seem to give us??

[vp21ct]

I have been going through scenarios in my head and have come to one conclusion. Trek wins.

My arguments (and counter arguments)

Star Ship power:
Star trek ships are seen as having less powerful reactors to Star Wars vessels, but i believe i have found the reason why. Star Trek ships run a majority more subsystems at once than star wars vessels, and are capable of far more extreme manuvers (that takes ALOT of power). Star Wars ships also seem to be dominated by their reactors, roughly 1/4 of the mass of an ISD is its reactor, where as the warp core takes up only 1 section on 3 decs on the Galaxy, and the fusion reactors are roughly the size of a large shuttle.

Logistics:
Here star trek losses, but putes up one hell of a fight. Star Wars posseses and increadable number of planets and speices, and the Empire posseses a fleet in the Hundred Thousands. The Federation, by comparasin is a dwarf. But, the federation is not geared for war, they have not dedicated as much of their economy to a war effort, and have only truly done so once (the Dominion War). It is my belief that if the Federation were to truly attempt to do so they could crank out ships bigger and faster than the empire by a factor of nearly 10 to 1. They are so industrially powerful that they can afford not to pay for anything, and still have an almost completely utopian society. That said, they would eventualy fall to the empire, as they have a whole Galaxy to work with. Which brings me to...

Territory:
The Star wars galaxy has never been measured, however i have done some work and I have come to the conclusion that it is much smaller than our own galaxy (ie, the star trek galaxy), That means that the size difference between the empire and the federation is not as severe as once believed (though it is still pretty severe). please feel free to make youre own calculations and tell me what you come up with. I came up with SW Gal 2/3 our size

Ground Combat:
This is a hard one to judge, as we seldom got to see this in star trek, however i believe that star trek would win (logistics aside). My reason for saying so is that wonderful invetion, the Phazor. we have seen it stun, we have seen it widen its beam, and we have seen it cut through metal with ease, It can even vaporize an opponent entirely. Star Wars weapons are very limited, kill or stun, and cannot widen their beam, are severly size limited (ie, pistol only kills unarmored troop, rifle: armored troop, bigger: vehicles). I have no doubts in my mind that a phazor, set to maximum setting, can take down even an ATAT. All said though, star trek would lose due to logistics.

Weapons:
Star Wars has some badass weapons, but don't let the Super Lasor confuse you, they have nothing on star trek. Star Trek weapons are full capable of matching star wars turbo-lasors, even those mounted on the ISD. Star Trek weapons are also very perscise, capable of hitting consistently on target (we only ever see a ship miss its mark when there is something wrong with the sensors.) That brings me to....

Defences:
Star Wars may have Star Trek beat here. Star Wars ships suffer very little damage when their sheilds are up, and said sheilds are cabable of taking many, MANY, blasts. However, when they go down, they stay down. Star Trek sheilds can go down and come back up in as little as 5 seaconds, this means that there is little opoutunity to do real gut punches on Star Trek ships, however they are less effective at keeping out all the damage. Star Trek sheilds are also much more general and keep out a wider range of effects, such as...

Special Teck:
Here it is, the last nail in the coffin, and why star trek wins. I'll start with transporters. we know that Transporter technology is as old as the federation itself, and was discovered by Humans even before real Deflector Sheids were. Since we know that navigatoinal sheilds and Deflector sheilds are different, and that Deflector Sheilds are only used in combat, we can assume that the ability to repel a transporter lock was built in to the design, and has been since. This leave star wars at a disadvantage, they have not encountered transporters before, and thus may not be able to repel them with their sheilds. next is replicators, Wich allow longer tours of duty for star trek ships, as well as greator self repair capablilty, we have seen the enterprise and voyager repair themselves from situations that would have put an ISD in drydock for months. Finally, Hollograms. Star Trek has holograms that are literally indistinguishable from the real thing, Star wars on the other hand has holograms as bad as what we have now (just much more available), this allows star trek better deception capabilitys, and makes it so that the empire will have to do to much guess work to be able to win the war.

(do please respond to this if you disagree/agree)

Part 2, and star wars does even worse.

Propulsion, Sublight:

Now just because star wars has such gigantic engines doesn't mean they are more powerful, quite the contrary. Star Wars uses a Ion Fusion engine, wich, by the time of star trek, is out of date. Star Trek ships are FAR more manuverable and we have seen them move objects many times their mass (stellar debre), Star Trek engines are also far less vulnreable than their Star Wars counterparts, meaning that in battle, star trek could destroy an ISD's engines (this is because star wars craft traditionally have a weak point aft of their engines.)

Propulsion, FTL:

This is were Star Wars.....Losses. Don't get me wrong, not even Quantum Slipstream drive can compeat to Hyperdrive, but there are limitations to hyperdrive that turn it into a great hinderance. Federatoin starships have been seen to enter Warp VERY close to planets, sometimes borderline atmosphere. If a Star Wars craft were to attempt to do so, it would be destroyed. This means that the empire will be at the mercy of the federation. Let us suppose that the federation, realizing the limitations of hyperdrive, set up gravity wells (artificial or otherwise) along known hyperspace routes. this would cut off imperial travel along these routes (or at least slow them considerably). Further more, this would allow the federation to choose their battles, forcing the Empire into situations that it cant win. Star Fleet would have no limitations, they would be able to sneek past the empire along routes that they wouldn't even consider defending. And imperial tactics would be at a loss. Standard preseger in a fleet engagement is to turn on gravity wells to restrict enemy access or retreat. Wich leads to....

Tactics:

Here the empire losses, again (I know, it seams like i am sabotaging it but im not, im looking at it all logically.)
This topic deals alot with capabilites covered elswhere, so READ THE REST OF IT.

Standard imperial doctrine is for an ISD (or similar craft) to stay well out of the fray and launch fighters or engage at close range. the purpose for this is to allow the Turbo-Lasers to be at their most accurate (see weapons). Smaller craft merely play support, defending against craft too small for the ISD Turbo-Lasers to hit. Star Trek standard practice for attacking ships that size (of the ISD), is to orbit the vessel at extreme speed, engaging evasive manuveres when nessacary (because they don't need to be as stable to hit the target). When these are considered, the ISD doesn't stand a chance. Star Fleet ships can be questimated at being as meneuverable as a cranky Falcon (which an ISD's lasers could shred) but are many size and power of the Falcon. Many of you are thinking, "but the Tubo-Lasors could shred any thing less than a galaxy"....Yes that is true, if it were standing still. But these ships would be engaging extreme evasive manuvures, dodging this way and that, coordinating in a deadly dance. We have seen that an ISD's Turbo-Lasors are inneffective against craft more manuverable than a cruiser (wich star Trek ships are). This allows for even worse devastation to occur inside the ISD, as the gunners would be kept busy by the ships attacking, others could come in for boarding action (see Special Tech).

"but what about the other ships".....well i was getting to those. We have seen in star wars that there is a SIGNIFIGANT drop in firepower when size is reduced, thus the other ships wouldn't even be able to compete (admit it you know they wouldn't), the empire is focused on the philosofy "BIGGER IS BETTER".





So in conclusion star trek wins. Now if you want, i can even kill a deathstar for you, but i'll spare you that unless you force me.


Feel free to complain :p

[Himser]

1st complaint .. you bacj up ZERO of your "observations"

:P

[vp21ct]

1st complaint .. you bacj up ZERO of your "observations"

:P

Very Well.


The Propulsion Sublight: Star Trek engines are more powerful http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Stellar_core_fragment

Propulsion FTL: star wars FTL is sensitive to grav feilds http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperspace

Star fleet tactics See "Star Trek: First Conatact"


and do try to spell correctly.

[Lost]

I wanted to chime in here for second. Depending on who wrote Empire vs Federation , the likely outcome is the Federation would win in the end.

Emperor Palpatine is alot like Stalin , he has everything under control , until he is faced with the unknown. Much like Stalin , he is not a very effective tactial commander , most of the Empire is not very tactical. Darth Vader as shown in the movies , saw problems in thier tactics but nobody listened (they saw no threat to small fighters vs a massive moon size base not design to repel small fighters.)

The clone troops , as shown in the films and TV are not very tactical , in the recent film The Clone Wars , they really just threw themselves at the driod army , only became tactical when thier zerger failed. Further more, they are only as skilled as the program training them allowed them to be , it waned badly by the beginning of the Return of the Jedi films.

Darth Vader is an expert tactical officer , that nobody in the films seem to listen to. During the New Hope, to Return of the Jedi , he was dismissed in many battles , and apparently his Force abilities were weaken , because he couldnt detect Solo , in field of rocks , and he couldnt sense the rebels on Endor.

Further more , Darth Vader (and the Sith in general) are highly emotional, feeding on anger , but at the same time , exposed to feelings of attachment , fear and hatred. Its a weak point that allowed Luke to kill the Emperor (through Darth Vader).

On the other side of the coin , you have the Federation, with maybe the expection of Deanna Troi, and Doctor Crusher, almost every personnel can assume command of a starship with some ability. Further more the personnel are better trained , and trained longer than the clones. It makes a huge difference in combat when you got real people vs vat grown things.

I wont go into commanders , because what I know of star trek is only from the movies , and original series. But Jean-Luc Picard was always thinking and did a good job, I thought Kirk was better , since he never wrecked a ship on purpose o.o

So in the end Federation would win , I m not sure how the Force would play out , its only really developed in the films in Ep 1 to 3 , Ep 1 to 3 broke alot of Ep 4 to 6 ...

[Zyrious]

How is the Empire "Not Tactical"? EU aside, in RotJ we see a lot of tactics. The Emperor purposely gives the rebels knowledge of the second deathstar in order to lure them into a trap. Vader, did infact, detect the rebels, and knew Luke was with him.

The *only* reason the rebels won on Endor was because of the worst plot mechanics ever - Ewoks. The indigeonous life on Endor outnumbers the imperials and was able to handle the terrain much better than the Imperials were. Combined with the elite rebel commando's that broke free during the chaos, they were able to bring down the shield crucial to imperial success.

The Imperial Fleet also placed itself in a tactical position to round behind the Rebels once they hypered into the system, and block them from escape. Trapping the rebels to choose from either being blasted apart by the Deathstar or torn apart by a 30 imperial star destroyers and the SSD Executor.

At the end of the day however, luck and plot mechanics had the rebels win the battle. An A-wing hit the SSD bridge and vader killed the Emperor, completely destroying the top of the chain of command. After that and the destruction of the death-star, the imperial fleet was forced to flee and the rebels won the day.

[Himser]

seince when is dealing with a star fragment anything to do with sulight speed?? at least dragon backs up his arguments with credible sorces that are relivent

what about the fact that you never get to see SW ships in action doing anything that could even remotly seem the same as this. you think by its absence they cant do this?? i belive by its absence its possable that they canjust they dont have enouf time to show us ..

( PS your wiki page is non cannon .. thus not admissable by teh rules of this debate)

and even with that lol i remember correctly that warp cannot be used in grav wells eather ..

also watch episosde 3 if you want to see SW tactics, episode 4,5,6 do not have any good tactical movie scenes

and HOW can you say ST tactics are better ?? has ST somehow without anyones knolage proven that so called sitting back and sending fighters is less tactical ?? ( even tho its EU that states this uin the first place whereas the ovies all have capatal ships geting in close and using their many turbolasers)



oh yea and on anouther note i forgiot abiout the burns in SW seem to be consistant with plasma ( aunt may uncle ownes smoking boddies, geebo's smoking form from one blaster shot ect.. ( yes different then a phasers or disruptor .. but any less deadly??)

[Himser]

also just bhecause the empire is like stalin and USSR does not mean they automatically lose lol the svbiets lost the most in WW2 BUT they alsop gained the most land ( think east germany, all USSR's former holdings .. ahnd it gaind all that by sending waves of ill equiped inexpereanced troops at the better trained abnd better equiped germans,, it was a war of scale tho .. and the bigger won out in the end,

what did canad gaion??, what did USA gain, what did france gain, what did Briton gain ?? thee countries fgained pride ect.. but no land .. USSR is the only group that gained any signiicant land and resorces..

[vp21ct]

seince when is dealing with a star fragment anything to do with sulight speed?? at least dragon backs up his arguments with credible sorces that are relivent

what about the fact that you never get to see SW ships in action doing anything that could even remotly seem the same as this. you think by its absence they cant do this?? i belive by its absence its possable that they canjust they dont have enouf time to show us ..

( PS your wiki page is non cannon .. thus not admissable by teh rules of this debate)

and even with that lol i remember correctly that warp cannot be used in grav wells eather ..

also watch episosde 3 if you want to see SW tactics, episode 4,5,6 do not have any good tactical movie scenes

and HOW can you say ST tactics are better ?? has ST somehow without anyones knolage proven that so called sitting back and sending fighters is less tactical ?? ( even tho its EU that states this uin the first place whereas the ovies all have capatal ships geting in close and using their many turbolasers)



oh yea and on anouther note i forgiot abiout the burns in SW seem to be consistant with plasma ( aunt may uncle ownes smoking boddies, geebo's smoking form from one blaster shot ect.. ( yes different then a phasers or disruptor .. but any less deadly??)

OK, lets get something straight right now. THOSE PAGES ARE CANNON, they list cannon material, both of them, INCLUDING WOOKIEPEDIA. If you wan't something more "valid" SDN does list many of the same things i use in my argument (though i believe that like you he is biased).

The Stellar fragment DOES have a point. Not even a star destroyer could have pushed that, the only way to PUSH on something is to have youre engines ensure that you are not PUSHED youreself.

as for warp not being able to be used in a grave well, that is HIGH warp menuvures and that is more for NAVIGATIONAL purposes.

In the point of tactics, YES launching fighters is tactical, NO it is not effective on Star Trek ships, phasors are too accurate they would tear through tie fighters.

It has been said MANY times in the EU that ISD's are not very menuverable, and many other ships are said to be just as bad. But we have SEEN Star Trek ships perform manuveres that would stress a Y-WING.


And you argue against my points, yet youre arguments are admitadly speculation.

And Turbo-lasers are indeed less acurate.

I would also like to point out that you have yet to argue against my other points, the ones that really win the war (Special teck, Ground, ect.)

And before you say "deathstar PWNS ALL", two words, Phase Cloak.

[vp21ct]

what did canad gaion??, what did USA gain, what did france gain, what did Briton gain ?? thee countries fgained pride ect.. but no land .. USSR is the only group that gained any signiicant land and resorces..

its called "being the good guy" try it some time.

[onebuffyfan2]

starfleet command is inusignifigant next to the power of the force;) what i want to know is who do marry,kill, and sleep with. padme,troy,leia.thats the real question;) you can only pick 1 for each f,marry,kill

[Zyrious]

Show me one manuver a Sovereign or Galaxy has pulled that would "Stress a y-wing". These are Fighters and Bombers, and just like in real life, these always move the fastest. They have less mass to move, and move very quickly, even if they didnt look it in Star Wars (Their effects being limited back in the 70's...). We can see in the prquels however, with Jedi Starfighters and Republic Fighters that they can turn on a dime, and pull manuvers that would rip the pylons off a sovereign.

Look at the dominion war video clips, or even your reference, first contact. The sovereign turns slowly and deliberatly, it takes wide turns. It is a battleship in all senses. Yes, it is more manuverable than an ISD, but no its not going to be out-turning a Tie Interceptor. Also, it is still very large and it does move slowly enough that once in wepaons range, every Turbolaser is going to be able to hit it. Also note that every ISD and SSD is equipped with multiple tractor emitters and Ion Cannons capable of disabling electronics, including shields.

Also recall, that you can't damage any of an ISD's systems without Ion weapons or until you get its shields down. As state earlier, shields in Star wars on large vessels block 100% of the damage until they fall.

Also, fighters *can* do good against a starship. Each ISD contains 75 fighters, now imagine a fleet of Star Destroyers unleashing thousands of fighters. A Starship can only fire so many phasers so quickly, and meanwhile they will have thousands of small turbolaser blasts hitting them. It may not do as much damage as an ISD, but thousands of lasers hitting you at once adds up very quickly.

And yes, Star Trek engines are JUST as vulnerable as Star Wars. You can clearly see and target the impulse engines on a starfleet vessel. On a Sovereign they are very easy to hit GIANT Red squares for instance. Also, targetting the Nacelles will quickly take a starship out of commission and start draining its power and fuel supply rapidly.

Also, its shown throughout SW lore that if you try to fly behind the engines of a Star Destroyer, your ship will be torn apart by the wake of the engines. So be careful where you fly if you try to disable those engines!

[vp21ct]

Show me one manuver a Sovereign or Galaxy has pulled that would "Stress a y-wing". These are Fighters and Bombers, and just like in real life, these always move the fastest. They have less mass to move, and move very quickly, even if they didnt look it in Star Wars (Their effects being limited back in the 70's...). We can see in the prquels however, with Jedi Starfighters and Republic Fighters that they can turn on a dime, and pull manuvers that would rip the pylons off a sovereign.

Look at the dominion war video clips, or even your reference, first contact. The sovereign turns slowly and deliberatly, it takes wide turns. It is a battleship in all senses. Yes, it is more manuverable than an ISD, but no its not going to be out-turning a Tie Interceptor. Also, it is still very large and it does move slowly enough that once in wepaons range, every Turbolaser is going to be able to hit it. Also note that every ISD and SSD is equipped with multiple tractor emitters and Ion Cannons capable of disabling electronics, including shields.

Also recall, that you can't damage any of an ISD's systems without Ion weapons or until you get its shields down. As state earlier, shields in Star wars on large vessels block 100% of the damage until they fall.

Also, fighters *can* do good against a starship. Each ISD contains 75 fighters, now imagine a fleet of Star Destroyers unleashing thousands of fighters. A Starship can only fire so many phasers so quickly, and meanwhile they will have thousands of small turbolaser blasts hitting them. It may not do as much damage as an ISD, but thousands of lasers hitting you at once adds up very quickly.

And yes, Star Trek engines are JUST as vulnerable as Star Wars. You can clearly see and target the impulse engines on a starfleet vessel. On a Sovereign they are very easy to hit GIANT Red squares for instance. Also, targetting the Nacelles will quickly take a starship out of commission and start draining its power and fuel supply rapidly.

Also, its shown throughout SW lore that if you try to fly behind the engines of a Star Destroyer, your ship will be torn apart by the wake of the engines. So be careful where you fly if you try to disable those engines!

Ok so the Galaxy and the Soverign can't perfor manuveres that would put stress on a Y-Wing, but the Defiant can, as can many ships its size (though they don't have its power).

An alpha pattern could take out 6 TIEs in roughly 1.3 seaconds, with aproximately 3 seaconds recycle time. thats not including Photon torpedoes.

as for the flying behind an ISD. Few ships that tried to do it were starfleet Battleships. That said, it would be a tricky situation.
(and yeah ur right about ST engines being just as vulnreable, but that is negated by SW lack of accuracy)

[vp21ct]

starfleet command is inusignifigant next to the power of the force

Set Phasors to wide beam setting.

[Himser]

lol good guys do not always win. as seen in ww2 till the USSR breckup 60 years later

ummm wookipidia has some cannon in it yes .. but is NOT canon .. wow did you read it .. the direct rules of this therad are ONLY from the movies in SW and maby the offical episode 1,2,3,4,5,6 novels and scripts .. none of the EU wookiepedia uses EU materal extensivly

im not bias .. i like both series very mutch lol .. and if you read my posts throughout this thread you will see that i state he federation due to some specal tech can put up a very giood fight agaist the empire .. i try to keep as many assumptions as i can out of my arguments. and try and back then up with dircet canon and what it means on screen

why are fighters not effective .. if this was truely the case the federaion would not have bothered buiding fighters im the first place for the domionion war .. ( NTM SW fighetesr are 1/4 to 1./6 the size of a fed fighetr and we have seen repededly the defiant ( 80 meter long frigate) get missed by both phasers, diruptiors and torpedos. why would you ASSUME that a 5 meter long fighter cannot avouid these as well ??

HPW do you KNOW that a SD cannot push on a steller fragment WE NEVER SEE ONE haha .. your bases are on assumptions taken by your bias ...

i 100% agre that turbo lasers are less accerate ,. but by how mutch i dont pretend to know as we a;mopst never see a turbo laser firing in any movies except at extream angles and close ranges .. and they most if the ime hit

i have not seen or heard of any evodemce that the reason ST ships dont go to warp in gravady wells is pure navigation .. plese provide some

also you saying that SDN uses spme of the same arguments as you do does not help your opionion i have SHOWN how SDN AND St vs SW are inalid and based upon assumptions..

[Zyrious]

Set Phasors to wide beam setting.

Can't set it to wide beam setting if the phaser is pulled out of your hand. Not to mention Darth Vader's armor is impenetrable to weapons like that. He got hit directly with a *lightsaber*, which is concentrated superheated plasma capable of burning through almost any kind of armor and metal, and yet he barely got a scrape on his right arm.

[vp21ct]

lol good guys do not always win. as seen in ww2 till the USSR breckup 60 years later

ummm wookipidia has some cannon in it yes .. but is NOT canon .. wow did you read it .. the direct rules of this therad are ONLY from the movies in SW and maby the offical episode 1,2,3,4,5,6 novels and scripts .. none of the EU wookiepedia uses EU materal extensivly

why are fighters not effective .. if this was truely the case the federaion would not have bothered buiding fighters im the first place for the domionion war .. ( NTM SW fighetesr are 1/4 to 1./6 the size of a fed fighetr and we have seen repededly the defiant ( 80 meter long frigate) get missed by both phasers, diruptiors and torpedos. why would you ASSUME that a 5 meter long fighter cannot avouid these as well ??


i have not seen or heard of any evodemce that the reason ST ships dont go to warp in gravady wells is pure navigation .. plese provide some

also you saying that SDN uses spme of the same arguments as you do does not help your opionion i have SHOWN how SDN AND St vs SW are inalid and based upon assumptions..

First off, It is said in the movies that Hyperdrive collapses in the pressence of a grave well (where persisely escapes me, but i know it is there), seacond, the deffiant has ECM, TIEs do not, Third this happens manny times in Voyager, they enter warp near a black whole for instance, or perform a warp flyby.

Those arguments that i compare to SDN are ones that have been validated by cannon.



My hobbie is Knoledge, if you say that i messed up, than be assured that i double checked.

[vp21ct]

Can't set it to wide beam setting if the phaser is pulled out of your hand. Not to mention Darth Vader's armor is impenetrable to weapons like that. He got hit directly with a *lightsaber*, which is concentrated superheated plasma capable of burning through almost any kind of armor and metal, and yet he barely got a scrape on his right arm.

didn't luke cut off his hand.

[Zyrious]

First off, It is said in the movies that Hyperdrive collapses in the pressence of a grave well (where persisely escapes me, but i know it is there), seacond, the deffiant has ECM, TIEs do not, Third this happens manny times in Voyager, they enter warp near a black whole for instance, or perform a warp flyby.

Those arguments that i compare to SDN are ones that have been validated by cannon.



My hobbie is Knoledge, if you say that i messed up, than be assured that i double checked.

Note that SW ships can also hyper in proximity to black holes. The Kessel run anybody? Ships go through kessel all of the time. in EU lore, mass amounts of ships went through all the time and even constructed the first deathstar there.

Also, nowhere in the movies do they actually mention being capable of getting pulled out of hyperspace, quite the opposite actually, as han details that if they dont plot their course properly, they'll fly right through a sun or blackhole and be destroyed, without ever being pulled out of hyperspace as they enter the gravity well.

[Zyrious]

didn't luke cut off his hand.

Yup, in RotJ he cut off his hand, though admittedly he was also swinging pretty strongly to ensure he did. However, that isnt exactly the most armored part of vader either.

[Himser]

HOW do you kow TIE fighters di not have ECM??

the only place i know of where it talks about hyperdrive is when han tells luke that the nav coputer has to get a direct reading or else they might fly throgh a star or black hole ending their trip

i do not recall voyager doing this .. but i neber liked that series so i missed quite a few of the episodes ..

[vp21ct]

Also, nowhere in the movies do they actually mention being capable of getting pulled out of hyperspace, quite the opposite actually, as han details that if they dont plot their course properly, they'll fly right through a sun or blackhole and be destroyed, without ever being pulled out of hyperspace as they enter the gravity well.

I believe he "dumbed it down" for luke

Note that SW ships can also hyper in proximity to black holes. The Kessel run anybody? Ships go through kessel all of the time. in EU lore, mass amounts of ships went through all the time and even constructed the first deathstar there.

Those ships proceeded with EXTREME caution, and the kessel run involves avoiding the maw (didn't we discuss this).

[vp21ct]

HOW do you kow TIE fighters di not have ECM??


Because they have: Engines, Navigation, Fuel, Weapons, Pilot. in that order.

[vp21ct]

Yup, in RotJ he cut off his hand, though admittedly he was also swinging pretty strongly to ensure he did. However, that isnt exactly the most armored part of vader either.

Everyone.....AIM FOR HIS HANDS.

[Zyrious]

I believe he "dumbed it down" for luke
That's speculatory



Those ships proceeded with EXTREME caution, and the kessel run involves avoiding the maw (didn't we discuss this).

The DS 1 was made right next to the maw. And i think it was mentioned off-hand earlier.

[Zyrious]

Everyone.....AIM FOR HIS HANDS. Wrists, wrists. His hands can block energy weapons as well (Han Solo, ESB). Luke cut off his hand at the wrist. So aim for those :P

[Silverspar]

Show me one manuver a Sovereign or Galaxy has pulled that would "Stress a y-wing". These are Fighters and Bombers, and just like in real life, these always move the fastest. They have less mass to move, and move very quickly, even if they didnt look it in Star Wars (Their effects being limited back in the 70's...). We can see in the prquels however, with Jedi Starfighters and Republic Fighters that they can turn on a dime, and pull manuvers that would rip the pylons off a sovereign.All Federation starships can turn on a dime. I know you want to ignore that little fact, but every Federation starship has demonstrated maneuvering capabilities equivalent or greater than a fighter. And again, the speed that a starship moves at pretty much states it, and how fast would you say a Fighter travels at? 10,000 kilometers an hour? Maybe 100,000? A starship on full impusle (1/4 the speed of light aka cruise speed out of warp) is going 270,000,000 kiometrs an hour.

Look at the dominion war video clips, or even your reference, first contact. The sovereign turns slowly and deliberatly, it takes wide turns. It is a battleship in all senses. Yes, it is more manuverable than an ISD, but no its not going to be out-turning a Tie Interceptor. Also, it is still very large and it does move slowly enough that once in wepaons range, every Turbolaser is going to be able to hit it. Also note that every ISD and SSD is equipped with multiple tractor emitters and Ion Cannons capable of disabling electronics, including shields.Actually I've looked at all video clips, and I've seen Federation starships up to the sovereign turning on a dime and doing a full 720 degree axis rotation on the spot. You are just using hyperbole now.

Also recall, that you can't damage any of an ISD's systems without Ion weapons or until you get its shields down. As state earlier, shields in Star wars on large vessels block 100% of the damage until they fall.I know you like ot ignore facts, but Ion is inferior technology in the Star Trek universe.

Also, fighters *can* do good against a starship. Each ISD contains 75 fighters, now imagine a fleet of Star Destroyers unleashing thousands of fighters. A Starship can only fire so many phasers so quickly, and meanwhile they will have thousands of small turbolaser blasts hitting them. It may not do as much damage as an ISD, but thousands of lasers hitting you at once adds up very quickly.Federation starship moves too fast to get hit with the inaccuracy of ISD lasers, which, btw, again would not even phase a Federation starships shields. Per canon. So even if an ISD got a couple of hits in, wouldn't do much to the Fed starship.

And yes, Star Trek engines are JUST as vulnerable as Star Wars. You can clearly see and target the impulse engines on a starfleet vessel. On a Sovereign they are very easy to hit GIANT Red squares for instance. Also, targetting the Nacelles will quickly take a starship out of commission and start draining its power and fuel supply rapidly.Actually, compared to the ISD, the impusle engines on a starship are the hardest things to target. Now if you were saying warp engines, I would agree with you. Impulse, no, considering that a good ten percent of an ISD is nothing but engines, again ISD would be at a Fed ship's mercy.

Also, its shown throughout SW lore that if you try to fly behind the engines of a Star Destroyer, your ship will be torn apart by the wake of the engines. So be careful where you fly if you try to disable those engines!

Uhh, A, there is no atmosphere in space so there is no wake that can be generated by the engines. At best it would leave an ion trail. B, Federation ship weapons have a range of roughly 300,000 kilometers, some ships have greater range with the more powerful armaments. That's just phasers, I'm not even taking into consideration photon or quantum torpedoes, subpsace weaponry, or other tactics.

And in all this, I will remind you of one little tactic, the Picard Maneuver, or the RIker Maneuver, just to name a few.

[vp21ct]

That's speculatory



sorry didn't mean it in the Speculative sence, i meant it in the "that would be like Han" sense.


The DS 1 was made right next to the maw. And i think it was mentioned off-hand earlier.

note it never left, and when it tried to, it got destroyed. and we actually had quite the debat on it earlier.

(ps, i thought we were considering EU non cannon.)

[Zyrious]

Snip.

Far too much Ad Hominem in this post for me to address you respectfully. Rewrite.

[Zyrious]

sorry didn't mean it in the Speculative sence, i meant it in the "that would be like Han" sense.




note it never left, and when it tried to, it got destroyed. and we actually had quite the debat on it earlier.

(ps, i thought we were considering EU non cannon.)

I think we are, but me and you have been dipping our hand in the EU occasionally, which i dont think is entirely bad. But for the most part we probably should stick to the OP rules.

[vp21ct]

Federation starship moves too fast to get hit with the inaccuracy of ISD lasers, which, btw, again would not even phase a Federation starships shields. Per canon. So even if an ISD got a couple of hits in, wouldn't do much to the Fed starship.



Lets assume that Phasors and TLs have equal power. (thats what i did, and trek still won, albeit barely)

[Silverspar]

Far too much Ad Hominem in this post for me to address you respectfully. Rewrite.

Before you make a claim of ad hominem, I suggest you know what it means.

[vp21ct]

Wrists, wrists. His hands can block energy weapons as well (Han Solo, ESB). Luke cut off his hand at the wrist. So aim for those :P

I laughed so hard.

[Zyrious]

Before you make a claim of ad hominem, I suggest you know what it means.

Attacking a debater instead of plainly addressing his arguments. Calling me someone who "Likes to ignore facts" adds nothing to the debate, and is an attack on my character. Ad Hominem

[vp21ct]

Attacking a debater instead of plainly addressing his arguments. Calling me someone who "Likes to ignore facts" adds nothing to the debate, and is an attack on my character. Ad Hominem

Indeed, Silver, i have been able to keep this civilized as well, i would hope that we all can do so, (though we are not all Vulcans :p)

[Zyrious]

I laughed so hard.

Too bad there's only 1 Darth Vader. So as it is, he's pretty much a non-factor in the vs. Debate. You know, unless they get a tractor on a ship and send a boarding party. Then that turns into a big "ouch" situation.

[Himser]

and how o you knopw they dont .. lol a ECM in moderen aircraft is small .. SW may be even smaller .. ( remmeber i think this is EU tho but a A-wing ( smaller then a TIE ) is all speed, and ECM

i dont mind dipping in EU .. if we do we get stuf like eclipse, 12 million wourlds, Si-ruuk, chiss, sun crusher, TIE phantoms ( destroying the cloack argument) MAW installation ( destroying ST sheilds are betrter ) ect ,.

if i were you VP id stick to strict canon

silver .. where do ou get your info ?? 720degbree on a dime?? i have yet to see anytghing like that ..

[Silverspar]

Attacking a debater instead of plainly addressing his arguments. Calling me someone who "Likes to ignore facts" adds nothing to the debate, and is an attack on my character. Ad Hominem

I wasn't attacking your character I was presenting the facts to.

[Himser]

Too bad there's only 1 Darth Vader. So as it is, he's pretty much a non-factor in the vs. Debate. You know, unless they get a tractor on a ship and send a boarding party. Then that turns into a big "ouch" situation.



hmm they just need tio get One transporter turn off the atom diintergrater and they would have an army if Darth vaders .. haha fed would be screwed .. :P

[Silverspar]

and how o you knopw they dont .. lol a ECM in moderen aircraft is small .. SW may be even smaller .. ( remmeber i think this is EU tho but a A-wing ( smaller then a TIE ) is all speed, and ECM

i dont mind dipping in EU .. if we do we get stuf like eclipse, 12 million wourlds, Si-ruuk, chiss, sun crusher, TIE phantoms ( destroying the cloack argument) MAW installation ( destroying ST sheilds are betrter ) ect ,.

if i were you VP id stick to strict canon

silver .. where do ou get your info ?? 720degbree on a dime?? i have yet to see anytghing like that ..

We've seen the starships do that. In the old TNG series we've seen a Glaaxy turn on a dime, at warp, and we've seen the defiant Voyager and many other starships do a full axis rotation in battle. We've also seen starships perform maneuvers like the Picard Maneuver, which is a starship doing a close proximity warp maneuver that inadvertantly creates a duel image temporarily of the ship, leaving the impression the ship is in two places at once, as well as other things such as the Riker Maneuver which will gather cosmic debris to use as a weapon against others.

[vp21ct]

and how o you knopw they dont .. lol a ECM in moderen aircraft is small .. SW may be even smaller .. ( remmeber i think this is EU tho but a A-wing ( smaller then a TIE ) is all speed, and ECM

i dont mind dipping in EU .. if we do we get stuf like eclipse, 12 million wourlds, Si-ruuk, chiss, sun crusher, TIE phantoms ( destroying the cloack argument) MAW installation ( destroying ST sheilds are betrter ) ect ,.

if i were you VP id stick to strict canon

silver .. where do ou get your info ?? 720degbree on a dime?? i have yet to see anytghing like that ..

[sigh] i covered many of those things. and yes silver is wrong, but thats beside the point.

I have used mostly cannon (it does say that TIEs dont have ECM, in the novelizations of the movies)

Watch Generations, there is youre sun crusher.

ST cloak is more efficient, available, and, oh yes, you can see out of it.

Dont make me use section 31, i hate section 31. i would hope that the feds can beat the empire without section 31.

I find that we have a wonder ful debate on these forums between me and Zy, but a rather desparate one in you and Silver.

[Silverspar]

[sigh] i covered many of those things. and yes silver is wrong, but thats beside the point.

I have used mostly cannon (it does say that TIEs dont have ECM, in the novelizations of the movies)

Watch Generations, there is youre sun crusher.

ST cloak is more efficient, available, and, oh yes, you can see out of it.

Dont make me use section 31, i hate section 31. i would hope that the feds can beat the empire without section 31.

I find that we have a wonder ful debate on these forums between me and Zy, but a rather desparate one in you and Silver.

I am actually referencing Star Trek canon and lore, based on everything we've seen, so now I am wrong about things that have been stated in the series as well as seen such as the Picard Maneuver, and hairpin turns and full axis rotations, despite we've seen it now?

This defintiely describes an ad hominem.

[Himser]

thaks for the copliment :P

i dont recall that they diont .. musta missed that paragraph .. or its been a very long time seince i read them. A wings defently do tho

and yep u used mostly canon .. good lol i like the EU universe better even tho theres inconsistancies .. ( the TIE phantom cloak compared to timothy zahn's cloak. ) one can see the other cant .. ( i like zahn's better , its more realistic) i was thinking sun crusher more so in cannot destroy then destroy stars .. ( cuz we do know that ST can destroy stars and planets at will as well

[TheWon]

Attacking a debater instead of plainly addressing his arguments. Calling me someone who "Likes to ignore facts" adds nothing to the debate, and is an attack on my character. Ad Hominem

There you are! Man you take offense to stuff easily.

To get back on subject. Can anyone explain to me how a group of fighters can destroy a super star destroyer?
If you can do that. Then tell me how Federation starships can't do the same thing.

[vp21ct]

I have been going through scenarios in my head and have come to one conclusion. Trek wins.

My arguments (and counter arguments)

Star Ship power:
Star trek ships are seen as having less powerful reactors to Star Wars vessels, but i believe i have found the reason why. Star Trek ships run a majority more subsystems at once than star wars vessels, and are capable of far more extreme manuvers (that takes ALOT of power). Star Wars ships also seem to be dominated by their reactors, roughly 1/4 of the mass of an ISD is its reactor, where as the warp core takes up only 1 section on 3 decs on the Galaxy, and the fusion reactors are roughly the size of a large shuttle.

Logistics:
Here star trek losses, but putes up one hell of a fight. Star Wars posseses and increadable number of planets and speices, and the Empire posseses a fleet in the Hundred Thousands. The Federation, by comparasin is a dwarf. But, the federation is not geared for war, they have not dedicated as much of their economy to a war effort, and have only truly done so once (the Dominion War). It is my belief that if the Federation were to truly attempt to do so they could crank out ships bigger and faster than the empire by a factor of nearly 10 to 1. They are so industrially powerful that they can afford not to pay for anything, and still have an almost completely utopian society. That said, they would eventualy fall to the empire, as they have a whole Galaxy to work with. Which brings me to...

Territory:
The Star wars galaxy has never been measured, however i have done some work and I have come to the conclusion that it is much smaller than our own galaxy (ie, the star trek galaxy), That means that the size difference between the empire and the federation is not as severe as once believed (though it is still pretty severe). please feel free to make youre own calculations and tell me what you come up with. I came up with SW Gal 2/3 our size

Ground Combat:
This is a hard one to judge, as we seldom got to see this in star trek, however i believe that star trek would win (logistics aside). My reason for saying so is that wonderful invetion, the Phazor. we have seen it stun, we have seen it widen its beam, and we have seen it cut through metal with ease, It can even vaporize an opponent entirely. Star Wars weapons are very limited, kill or stun, and cannot widen their beam, are severly size limited (ie, pistol only kills unarmored troop, rifle: armored troop, bigger: vehicles). I have no doubts in my mind that a phazor, set to maximum setting, can take down even an ATAT. All said though, star trek would lose due to logistics.

Weapons:
Star Wars has some badass weapons, but don't let the Super Lasor confuse you, they have nothing on star trek. Star Trek weapons are full capable of matching star wars turbo-lasors, even those mounted on the ISD. Star Trek weapons are also very perscise, capable of hitting consistently on target (we only ever see a ship miss its mark when there is something wrong with the sensors.) That brings me to....

Defences:
Star Wars may have Star Trek beat here. Star Wars ships suffer very little damage when their sheilds are up, and said sheilds are cabable of taking many, MANY, blasts. However, when they go down, they stay down. Star Trek sheilds can go down and come back up in as little as 5 seaconds, this means that there is little opoutunity to do real gut punches on Star Trek ships, however they are less effective at keeping out all the damage. Star Trek sheilds are also much more general and keep out a wider range of effects, such as...

Special Teck:
Here it is, the last nail in the coffin, and why star trek wins. I'll start with transporters. we know that Transporter technology is as old as the federation itself, and was discovered by Humans even before real Deflector Sheids were. Since we know that navigatoinal sheilds and Deflector sheilds are different, and that Deflector Sheilds are only used in combat, we can assume that the ability to repel a transporter lock was built in to the design, and has been since. This leave star wars at a disadvantage, they have not encountered transporters before, and thus may not be able to repel them with their sheilds. next is replicators, Wich allow longer tours of duty for star trek ships, as well as greator self repair capablilty, we have seen the enterprise and voyager repair themselves from situations that would have put an ISD in drydock for months. Finally, Hollograms. Star Trek has holograms that are literally indistinguishable from the real thing, Star wars on the other hand has holograms as bad as what we have now (just much more available), this allows star trek better deception capabilitys, and makes it so that the empire will have to do to much guess work to be able to win the war.

(do please respond to this if you disagree/agree)

Part 2, and star wars does even worse.

Propulsion, Sublight:

Now just because star wars has such gigantic engines doesn't mean they are more powerful, quite the contrary. Star Wars uses a Ion Fusion engine, wich, by the time of star trek, is out of date. Star Trek ships are FAR more manuverable and we have seen them move objects many times their mass (stellar debre), Star Trek engines are also far less vulnreable than their Star Wars counterparts, meaning that in battle, star trek could destroy an ISD's engines (this is because star wars craft traditionally have a weak point aft of their engines.)

Propulsion, FTL:

This is were Star Wars.....Losses. Don't get me wrong, not even Quantum Slipstream drive can compeat to Hyperdrive, but there are limitations to hyperdrive that turn it into a great hinderance. Federatoin starships have been seen to enter Warp VERY close to planets, sometimes borderline atmosphere. If a Star Wars craft were to attempt to do so, it would be destroyed. This means that the empire will be at the mercy of the federation. Let us suppose that the federation, realizing the limitations of hyperdrive, set up gravity wells (artificial or otherwise) along known hyperspace routes. this would cut off imperial travel along these routes (or at least slow them considerably). Further more, this would allow the federation to choose their battles, forcing the Empire into situations that it cant win. Star Fleet would have no limitations, they would be able to sneek past the empire along routes that they wouldn't even consider defending. And imperial tactics would be at a loss. Standard preseger in a fleet engagement is to turn on gravity wells to restrict enemy access or retreat. Wich leads to....

Tactics:

Here the empire losses, again (I know, it seams like i am sabotaging it but im not, im looking at it all logically.)
This topic deals alot with capabilites covered elswhere, so READ THE REST OF IT.

Standard imperial doctrine is for an ISD (or similar craft) to stay well out of the fray and launch fighters or engage at close range. the purpose for this is to allow the Turbo-Lasers to be at their most accurate (see weapons). Smaller craft merely play support, defending against craft too small for the ISD Turbo-Lasers to hit. Star Trek standard practice for attacking ships that size (of the ISD), is to orbit the vessel at extreme speed, engaging evasive manuveres when nessacary (because they don't need to be as stable to hit the target). When these are considered, the ISD doesn't stand a chance. Star Fleet ships can be questimated at being as meneuverable as a cranky Falcon (which an ISD's lasers could shred) but are many size and power of the Falcon. Many of you are thinking, "but the Tubo-Lasors could shred any thing less than a galaxy"....Yes that is true, if it were standing still. But these ships would be engaging extreme evasive manuvures, dodging this way and that, coordinating in a deadly dance. We have seen that an ISD's Turbo-Lasors are inneffective against craft more manuverable than a cruiser (wich star Trek ships are). This allows for even worse devastation to occur inside the ISD, as the gunners would be kept busy by the ships attacking, others could come in for boarding action (see Special Tech).

"but what about the other ships".....well i was getting to those. We have seen in star wars that there is a SIGNIFIGANT drop in firepower when size is reduced, thus the other ships wouldn't even be able to compete (admit it you know they wouldn't), the empire is focused on the philosofy "BIGGER IS BETTER".





So in conclusion star trek wins. Now if you want, i can even kill a deathstar for you, but i'll spare you that unless you force me.



just reposting since it is the most consise example yet,

SW advocates feel free to offer a counter (use my model tho please.)

[Himser]

There you are! Man you take offense to stuff easily.

To get back on subject. Can anyone explain to me how a group of fighters can destroy a super star destroyer?
If you can do that. Then tell me how Federation starships can't do the same thing.

easy they have lots of help from capatil ships .. :P \
\
novils of RotJ state that 3 mon cal ships were directed to attack the SSD before the command for All ships to consintrate fire on the SSD was given .. thus the SSD sheilds were down due to the massive bomberment they were getting friom the entire relel fleet .. ( they just giot lucky and a A- wing desided to crash throgh the bridge after their shilds were down ..

[starshipcaptain]

is it just me or has this argument been around sence star trek came on the air. OR is it just so fun people do it anyway just curious that alll

[KO_Gilligan]

I SHALL END THIS DEBATE AND OBLITERATE STAR WARS FANBOYS WITH ONE MIGHTY BLOW - STAND CLEAR


Jar Jar

(sorry, it had to be done)

[vp21ct]

is it just me or has this argument been around sence star trek came on the air. OR is it just so fun people do it anyway just curious that alll

star trek came out first, and yes it is fun (when kept civil)

[Zyrious]

Its simply pure fun. Really, the two are apples and oranges. The very physics of the universe are COMPLETELY different in the two universes. Think about it, Star Wars has been a space-faring galaxy for 25,000 years, and yet they didnt develop transporters and anti-matter generators? Its because in Star Wars, those technologies are impossibilities and are far more difficult to develop then they are in the star trek universe, because the very way physics works in both universes is different.

But its still fun to do a pure-simplified versus debate to see who wins.

[Zyrious]

I SHALL END THIS DEBATE AND OBLITERATE STAR WARS FANBOYS WITH ONE MIGHTY BLOW - STAND CLEAR


Jar Jar

(sorry, it had to be done)

I counter with.. *throws pokeball* Wesley Crusher, i choose you!

[vp21ct]

I counter with.. *throws pokeball* Wesley Crusher, i choose you!

Christmas Special, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Zyrious]

Christmas Special, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

First 3 seasons of Enterprise, i choose you!

[Silverspar]

Well, I want to point out your statement on Logistics. Logistically, I agree that the Empire would have more manpower than the Federation, however, the Empire greatest weakness is that they enslave and oppress other races, leaving the human race as the supreme power in the Empire. The Federations advantage here would be that it does not enslave and it encompasses the ideas and feelings of all its member worlds into the whole, thus giving it greater flexibility to the Empire. Even the Klingons and Romulans do that to some degree.

As far as territory goes, I can't comment on that, since we see a lot of contradiction from the first three movies to the prequels on total territory of the Star Wars universe. Though it can be assumed that the Empire has more territory, I would have to agree that the Star Wars Galaxy is indeed smaller than our own Milky Way Galaxy, though from maps I've seen drawn up, it looks quite similar.

As far as ground combat goes, i think the Federation would win. Most Star Wars ground battles typically do the traditional 1600 British armies lining up in a nice order to be shot down, which would be a superior disadvantage. Though the Empire can pump out clones like no tomorrow, based on things such as personal photon grenades and mortars as well as wide beam shots, a ground assault would go to the Federation.

As far as propulsion and sub-light go, looked up a Y Wing on Wookiepedia, states that it's top speed is 1,000 KPH. Again going by Memory Alpha a Starfleet vessel at full impusle (typically described as 1/4 light speed) is travelling at 270,000,000 KPH. For all intents and purposes a Federation ship would leave fighters in the dust. Wookiepedia doesn't describe a ISDs maximum cruise speed, so can't compare there, but I think without a doubt the Federation ship still outflies it there. At 1/4 Impulse a Federation ship can go from earth to moon in 5 seconds roughly, as an example. Warp versus Hyper-Space, yea, I believe the Empire has the advantage, but I think we are forgetting Trans-Warp now, which the Borg have demonstrated (and the Federation was starting to use) can be used to transverse the Milky Way is extremely short time.

As far as tactics, the only tactics we've typically seen from the Imperials is to blow stuff up. Though I am sure they are able to do precise targetting, the only case of precise targetting was the first movie in the opening. Every other time the goal was to just blast the object out of the sky. Federation ships typically target critical systems first, which that can easily scan for and with the precise accuracy of their weaponry, take out in short order. Most often targetted systems are weapons and engines. However, I will give that an ISD alone would probably have many weaponry hubs to take out, so in this case Fed ships would probably take out the engines first to impare maneuverability even more.

[KO_Gilligan]

I counter with.. *throws pokeball* Wesley Crusher, i choose you!

OH NOOOO.... NOT THE WESLEY CRUSHER MOVE

[Zyrious]

You're forgetting that in ground battles the Imperial Army doesnt just use Troops, they also use heavy tanks such as the AT-AT, which can absorb HUGE amounts of damage without it breaching its armor (comments in ESB, that's why they had to use tow cables). Same with the AT-ST. They have heavy mounted turbolasers of almsot starship grade, missile launchers, and excellent targetting systems (an AT-AT from half a mile away could pinpoint and shoot individual soldiers with its anti-personell gun).

Also, we dont see the federation use wide-spread very often in ground conflicts. We see them use more and more pulse type weapons and phaser-rifles which dont appear to have a high-degree of wide-spread capability. The fact that federation officers dont just *always* use widespread beams seems to indicate there is some type of limitation. Perhaps a range limit and a power limit. No doubt with a wide-spread configuration, the beam would be a lot weaker, as it is dilluting over a wide area.

Also, though examples are few and far between, we have seen a Star Destroyer and the Millenium falcon go from planetary orbit to the edge of a solar system (hoth system) fairly rapidly.

As far as accuracy is concerned, i dont quite understand the argument "If you can't hit a fighter, you can't hit a Federation Starship". Yes, they are manuverable, but they are also large. And if they want to stay in weapons range of a star destroyer, they can't be punching full speed. Take a look at the Dominion war clips in full fleet battles, most federation ships like the Galaxy class are doing slow impulse and moving very slowly while they unleash phaser attacks. And ISD main weapons are also seen to be very fast and accurate. These arent "slow moving projectiles". Look at the opening sequence in A New Hope, Large Turbolaser blasts hit their target almost instantly. And they are capable of targeting pinpoint subsystems. Its only small fighters they have trouble with, as LTL's were not designed for fighters (This could be abused with Shuttles, but then those could be countered with heavy Tie-Fighter concentrations).

It seems manuvers like the Picard manuver are rare things, or again they would *always* be used. Also, federation phasers arent this "perfect accuracy" weapon, they just typically dont fire if they dont have a perfect lock. We see things such as shuttles or other vessels that are small that can avoid phaser fire for a degree of time. Thousands of fighters swarming a federation vessel are bound to give the tactical officer a large headache. Not to mention, said ship has to not only deal with the fighters, but the ISD's they came from. They have to prioritize firing. Shoot the fighters, or the ISD?

Also, Memory-Alpha is not exactly a cananocal source for Federaiton statistics (wookieepedia is similiar, while there is a lot of accurate canon info, there is a lot that is just pulled out of thin air and isnt even in any canon EU books).

[vp21ct]

First 3 seasons of Enterprise, i choose you!

Anakin Skywalker in RotS, use youre "horrid acting" attack

[Zyrious]

Anakin Skywalker in RotS, use youre "horrid acting" attack

Woah, what? Besides the Balcony scene, Hayden Christensen was good in RotS. He's actually applauded for his acting as Vader in that movie by most (not all).

[vp21ct]

Woah, what? Besides the Balcony scene, Hayden Christensen was good in RotS. He's actually applauded for his acting as Vader in that movie by most (not all).

The only emotion he showed was thinly veiled teen angs...i mean anger. im sorry but i would have liked to see less awkwardness from him and padme.

[Zyrious]

The only emotion he showed was thinly veiled teen angs...i mean anger. im sorry but i would have liked to see less awkwardness from him and padme.

I'm not denying the padme scenes were bad, but every other scene imo was good, especially the battle of heroes at the end of the movie.

Perhaps the actor Natalie Portman was at fault? Perhaps she didnt give Hayden much to work with :P

Besides, vader isnt exactly renowned for being emotional...

[vp21ct]

I'm not denying the padme scenes were bad, but every other scene imo was good, especially the battle of heroes at the end of the movie.

Perhaps the actor Natalie Portman was at fault? Perhaps she didnt give Hayden much to work with :P

Still i think that he could have been allitle less....... Teenish with that seen. just felt allitle to much like high school if you know what i mean.

[Silverspar]

You're forgetting that in ground battles the Imperial Army doesnt just use Troops, they also use heavy tanks such as the AT-AT, which can absorb HUGE amounts of damage without it breaching its armor (comments in ESB, that's why they had to use tow cables). Same with the AT-ST. They have heavy mounted turbolasers of almsot starship grade, missile launchers, and excellent targetting systems (an AT-AT from half a mile away could pinpoint and shoot individual soldiers with its anti-personell gun).And a hand phaser holds pretty much the same destructive power as some of the weapons used even on the AT-ATs. Furthermore, I am pretty sur ethe Federation would put themselves in an advantageous position to minimize the use of tanks and AT-ATs to begin with, though if called to really needing to, I am sure the Federation can also create personal shields and hte like similar to what we've seen used in Star Wars.

Also, we dont see the federation use wide-spread very often in ground conflicts. We see them use more and more pulse type weapons and phaser-rifles which dont appear to have a high-degree of wide-spread capability. The fact that federation officers dont just *always* use widespread beams seems to indicate there is some type of limitation. Perhaps a range limit and a power limit. No doubt with a wide-spread configuration, the beam would be a lot weaker, as it is dilluting over a wide area.Yes, one would have to agree that the wide beam would be more or less for close fire. But that's only an assumption because there have been few instances that have required it.

Also, though examples are few and far between, we have seen a Star Destroyer and the Millenium falcon go from planetary orbit to the edge of a solar system (hoth system) fairly rapidly.Yea but it still took time for them to do so, and again a lot of evidence, though contradictory from the first three to the prequels, supports that the Star Wars Galaxy is smaller than the Milky Way Galaxy, though both look similar when viewed from afar. And again, I will point out, that hte Borg have demonstrated speed capabilities that can traverse the Federation Galaxy in about as equal a time as a hyper speed Falcon or ISD. And at the end of Voyager, I believe there was study going on in Trek to figure out how the Trans-warp hubs worked. Also, let's not forget Starfleet has one weapon at their disposal that they use quite frequently; Time Travel.

As far as accuracy is concerned, i dont quite understand the argument "If you can't hit a fighter, you can't hit a Federation Starship". Yes, they are manuverable, but they are also large. And if they want to stay in weapons range of a star destroyer, they can't be punching full speed. Take a look at the Dominion war clips in full fleet battles, most federation ships like the Galaxy class are doing slow impulse and moving very slowly while they unleash phaser attacks. And ISD main weapons are also seen to be very fast and accurate. These arent "slow moving projectiles". Look at the opening sequence in A New Hope, Large Turbolaser blasts hit their target almost instantly. And they are capable of targeting pinpoint subsystems. Its only small fighters they have trouble with, as LTL's were not designed for fighters (This could be abused with Shuttles, but then those could be countered with heavy Tie-Fighter concentrations).Actually, all ship fights have been at full impulse in Star Trek, and in teh original series all ship fights were at warp speed actually. A ship that is relatively stationary, like an ISD comapratively trying to hit a ship moving at full impulse is going to have a tough time leading off on it. Federation ships are big, yes, but still move incredibly fast.

It seems manuvers like the Picard manuver are rare things, or again they would *always* be used. Also, federation phasers arent this "perfect accuracy" weapon, they just typically dont fire if they dont have a perfect lock. We see things such as shuttles or other vessels that are small that can avoid phaser fire for a degree of time. Thousands of fighters swarming a federation vessel are bound to give the tactical officer a large headache. Not to mention, said ship has to not only deal with the fighters, but the ISD's they came from. They have to prioritize firing. Shoot the fighters, or the ISD?Star Trek series we don't see many ship fights lasting more than a few volleys to begin with. The Picard Maneuver is considered legendary because at the time it was used, sensors were incapable of tracking it accurately, but data had figured out how to counter it, and since then we must assume that the maneuver is considered too risky, versus the technology and capabilities of Federation starships. However, we have also seen variants of the Picard Maneuver in action, such as the wargame that was being played out when the Ferengi showed up, the Enterprise faked destroying the opposing ship by using a variant of the Picard Maneuver to create a secondary looking ship that the Photon Torpedoes hit and appeared to destroy to fool the Ferengi.

Also, Memory-Alpha is not exactly a cananocal source for Federaiton statistics (wookieepedia is similiar, while there is a lot of accurate canon info, there is a lot that is just pulled out of thin air and isnt even in any canon EU books).

The Warp chart is actually accurate and canon.

[vp21ct]

Mem-alpha is all cannon.

Mem-beta is not.

[Zyrious]

And a hand phaser holds pretty much the same destructive power as some of the weapons used even on the AT-ATs. Furthermore, I am pretty sur ethe Federation would put themselves in an advantageous position to minimize the use of tanks and AT-ATs to begin with, though if called to really needing to, I am sure the Federation can also create personal shields and hte like similar to what we've seen used in Star Wars.
I dont see anything that shows federation phasers capable of vaporizing entire buildings (as AT-AT's did in ESB). They have vapor abilities, but with more solid objects such as rocks it is shown to take a constant stream for a period of time before it actually succeeds. I think someone else also put forward something showing a phaser at the kill setting has power equivelant to tossing coal into a fire.


Yes, one would have to agree that the wide beam would be more or less for close fire. But that's only an assumption because there have been few instances that have required it.

Yea but it still took time for them to do so, and again a lot of evidence, though contradictory from the first three to the prequels, supports that the Star Wars Galaxy is smaller than the Milky Way Galaxy, though both look similar when viewed from afar. And again, I will point out, that hte Borg have demonstrated speed capabilities that can traverse the Federation Galaxy in about as equal a time as a hyper speed Falcon or ISD. And at the end of Voyager, I believe there was study going on in Trek to figure out how the Trans-warp hubs worked. Also, let's not forget Starfleet has one weapon at their disposal that they use quite frequently; Time Travel.

Size of the Galaxy is not exactly pertinent. It could be 1/5'th the size of the Milky way and still have millions of Star Systems. However, we see dwarf Galaxies orbiting the SW galaxy which seems to place it at similiar size to the milky way, if not slight larger.


Actually, all ship fights have been at full impulse in Star Trek, and in teh original series all ship fights were at warp speed actually. A ship that is relatively stationary, like an ISD comapratively trying to hit a ship moving at full impulse is going to have a tough time leading off on it. Federation ships are big, yes, but still move incredibly fast.
what? Most ship fights in Star Trek are completely stationary, with exception. I watch repeats of Star Trek TNG all the time, very few full impulse combat. Now voyager is a different story. They are definetly a run and gun ship, but they arent exactly fast moving (Dragons Teeth episode, full impulse and they still took a while to exit the planet's atmosphere while battling small attack-vessels).

Also, again, as seen in DS9 Dominion War episodes, many large vessels which make up a good portion of the fleet were moving very slowly while engaging the enemy fleet. No "One side of the solar system to another in 5 seconds" type stuff.


Star Trek series we don't see many ship fights lasting more than a few volleys to begin with. The Picard Maneuver is considered legendary because at the time it was used, sensors were incapable of tracking it accurately, but data had figured out how to counter it, and since then we must assume that the maneuver is considered too risky, versus the technology and capabilities of Federation starships. However, we have also seen variants of the Picard Maneuver in action, such as the wargame that was being played out when the Ferengi showed up, the Enterprise faked destroying the opposing ship by using a variant of the Picard Maneuver to create a secondary looking ship that the Photon Torpedoes hit and appeared to destroy to fool the Ferengi.
Imperial Officers arent exactly Ignorant. You're treating them like some kind of Static AI that would not learn and adapt. Federation tricks would only work a handful of times on the Empire, and they too would adapt their tactics.



The Warp chart is actually accurate and canon.

[Silverspar]

I dont see anything that shows federation phasers capable of vaporizing entire buildings (as AT-AT's did in ESB). They have vapor abilities, but with more solid objects such as rocks it is shown to take a constant stream for a period of time before it actually succeeds. I think someone else also put forward something showing a phaser at the kill setting has power equivelant to tossing coal into a fire.Phasers have vaporized monuments, and yes hand phasers, in Star Trek when set on maximum setting. Imperial weapons at best put a few scorch marks and holes in buildings. Comparably speaking, a phaser can cut through a bulk head in a short order while an imperial weapon can't do the samething.

what? Most ship fights in Star Trek are completely stationary, with exception. I watch repeats of Star Trek TNG all the time, very few full impulse combat. Now voyager is a different story. They are definetly a run and gun ship, but they arent exactly fast moving (Dragons Teeth episode, full impulse and they still took a while to exit the planet's atmosphere while battling small attack-vessels).

Also, again, as seen in DS9 Dominion War episodes, many large vessels which make up a good portion of the fleet were moving very slowly while engaging the enemy fleet. No "One side of the solar system to another in 5 seconds" type stuff.Uh, no they weren't. TOS you can clearly hear Captain Kirk giving the order to accelerate, just most ship shots were made to a low budget so they appear stationary despite the fact Kirk had ordered speed icnreased to warp X.

In TNG, Captain Picard had ordered full impulse, but again, as all things for shots in Star Trek, budget limitations forced ship fights to look rather dull. The order was still there, and they were never stationary in their fights. I suggeset not completely going by what a shot image looks like compared to the orders given by the commanders.

Imperial Officers arent exactly Ignorant. You're treating them like some kind of Static AI that would not learn and adapt. Federation tricks would only work a handful of times on the Empire, and they too would adapt their tactics.Umm, most Imperial tactics involved throwing enough men at something to solve the problem. In fact the assault on the rebel base was nothing less than throwing all your firepower at it, and get in range of the generators. There was no black ops team setting charges, just send everything you got to overwhelm. The Federation would of sent in black ops teams to take out the generators, then another team to take the command center, with the ground forces mopping up the rest. The Imperial tactics are well documented.

[Zyrious]

Uh, no they weren't. TOS you can clearly hear Captain Kirk giving the order to accelerate, just most ship shots were made to a low budget so they appear stationary despite the fact Kirk had ordered speed icnreased to warp X.

In TNG, Captain Picard had ordered full impulse, but again, as all things for shots in Star Trek, budget limitations forced ship fights to look rather dull. The order was still there, and they were never stationary in their fights. I suggeset not completely going by what a shot image looks like compared to the orders given by the commanders.

Umm, most Imperial tactics involved throwing enough men at something to solve the problem. In fact the assault on the rebel base was nothing less than throwing all your firepower at it, and get in range of the generators. There was no black ops team setting charges, just send everything you got to overwhelm. The Federation would of sent in black ops teams to take out the generators, then another team to take the command center, with the ground forces mopping up the rest. The Imperial tactics are well documented.

What are you talking about?

First, Darth Vader and the 501'st elite Stormtrooper squadran lead an assault on the base itself while Heavy Vehicles such as the AT-AT's lead the assault on the primary generator for the shields. There were minimal losses. The original plan vader had of course was to sneak up on the rebels and bombard from out of range of their sensors, but ozzel ****ed up.

RotJ, The Emperor gave misinformation to the rebels to lead them to the DS 2, in which imperials came around from the dark side of the moon and trapped the rebel fleet. Meanwhile, the emperors most elite soldiers were stationed on Endor in hiding to ambush any rebel commando's, which they did do. Only losing because of a couple strange plot mechanics, luck, and random events.

[Himser]

OK gonna take a wile :P seince you wrote a lot

Star ship power

I agree somewhat. in a ship of both the same class and size .. ( im going to say Corillian corvette to the defiant as they are the closest in size) the ST ship will come out on top in power .. both have the same subsystems Life support, gravidy, shilds, wepons, ect. but ST ships do have the ability to re rout power to specific causes. a trait with SW has not shown to be able to do as extensivly ( they must be able to do it somewhat as thats the whole point iof R-1,2,3,4,5 droids on fighters) the tantive IV yes is at least 1/3 reacor but that is due to the ships reliance oin speed ( witch didnt get it away from a ISD) but i cant see how a ISD is 1/4 reactor maby 1/8 at most ( juding by the modles and empire at war game ect that have static vewis of ISDs. that being said tho i also belive the ST ships are more manuvrable thentheir SW counterparts but not so mutch as everyone belives .. ( watch when the tantive IV leaves coricants orbit) ST CAN however do near 180s witch as you suggested do take lots of power .. but remember vacume of space they just6 have to undo what they were doing before and from what i remember there is a delay

Overall tho ST per size in power beats SW. with probily has mutch to do with the fusion of hypermatter compared to the annialation of antimatter ..

Logistics.

i agree somehwhat the empire does have a huge ammounts of planets ( 1 million by canon, with 10,000 senitors controling them) with means the federation is at least 100X populated planets smaller and if you go by those maps you see on the internet of the ST galexy 10000X smaller in resorce plaent number ) where the federation does not 100-150 i think was my lst count. on that note tho the empire buildt the SSDs in 4 years or so and the second death star in what was it 6 years or so .. that means when they set their mind to it t5hey can out produce the feds in mass and scale .. i do belive however that yes the feds CAN build faster then the empires manual buidling because of the use of replicators and other energy matter converters .. but as we have repedetly seen a federation battle ship is by my estimation 1/5 o 1/6 of the mass of a impereal one. ( Enterprize E to ISD) so mass to mass i belive they are euil in build rates .. ( i dont know why they dont do this but if they bild say a giant replicator and copy a soverign class design .. they got the empire beat in build rates by lots)

Overall Impereal Win due to size of resorce base, size of shipyards, and size of Millitary industrial complex

Territory ..

i do know know or relly care about the size of the galexy lol the Empire controls 1 million planets with at the very least 10,000 heavaly populated worulds or groups of wourlds. the federation contyols i belive 100-150 populated wourlds in a very small reguion of space .. i do not kow what is considerd accerate in ST general acceptances but i would estimate the Empire at 2ce he size of the borg colective OR 3-4 times the sizeof the dominion .. ( dependiong on what map you look at )

so empire win ..by a long shot

( PS a larger teritory means more resorces to go to policing and border control ect .. )

Ground Combat

Disagree completly the feds dont sem to have many wepons or armurd vehicals or anything of the type. one on one a clone trooper ( storm trooper) has way more tactacal ability and batter array of wepons then a federation crewmnan ( granted we never se marines or anything so we dont know if they exist, im going off what we know for shure) a stormtooper only knows how to fight one on one or in vehicals .. they do not know mutch star ship type stuff .. thus all they do is train around what crewmen are taught on the sidelines about. so sheer skill and trainibng has SW winning .. we have evidence that stormtroopers wepons can kill people gruesomely and without regard for the niceties of a phaser disintigration ( both kill just as well) the burn hugely and have lots of power behind every shot .. that being said however they do have drawbacks .. no wide beam stun ex. and any other techoloical assest they are meerly for killing. i also beligve a phaser will not hurt a stormtrooper as bad due to the armour .. but as we know the beemn where armopur and vaperation still vapeizes them so stormtroopers will be subject to disintigration .. but i have yet to hear of that on a wide beam setting. also in the battle of geonosis we see many differnt vehicals that care capible of taking out shuddles and fighters witch seem to the the federations main vehical assault force .. also as we have seen on tatoine a storm trooper platoon with hand held wepons was able to defete an armourd snadcrawler with huge treads and tracks and beams destyroyed ( haveing worked around these tylpes of machines my whole life that is not an easy thing to do evebn with a modern grenade or TNT of our era. )

Overall .. Impereal win .. ( negating logistics, witch would add a favor of sight to sight transporters by the feds but allso the massive millatary might behind the wmpire i have chosen to negit it )

Wepons.

Even match ( negaing superlazers and any specal omega partical wepin type thing) . i still profess a SW tubolaser is a plasma based wepon same as their blasters tyhus create immence heat and energy .. ( remember the dreaded romulan plasma torpedo) so it is at least equil to a heavy pulse disrupter, but many times more emmitters or battaries. i agre 100% that phasers are more accetate then turbo lasers .. but that does not negaite the fact that phasers and disrpters are battleship to battleship wepons not desigend for quick fiing heavaly corrected and consintrated fire as are needed agaist fighetrs .. so yea i belive nearly every shot agaiost a ISD will score some sort of hit .. but agaist a figheter ( even a droid one ) it may hit a few but a lot more are getting through thn you would like to belive ... one thing ST has on SW is torpedos witch are havyer then the SW torpedos and do more dammage .. On Ion cannons they disrupt systems .. dont know mutch about them so i would assume that they would have the same effect on a fed ship as they o through SW sheilds as well .. cant say eather way on this

Overall .. Tie( on size class to size class) ,, Impereal fighters pretty mutch equil out the feds torpedo abilities.

Defences..

Impereal sheilds sem to take mutch more punishment none of this one hit 30% shilds type thing going on .. but i agree that once the shilds are down they are down .. this is most likely due to teyh fact that as soon as the sheilds are down the enimy fighters take out the ships sheild generators thus ot able to raise them again .. ( the generators being huge and in conspicus laces may have something to do with because they are so power*** they cannot be inside the ship proper) treck shields will suffer faster then SW sheilds ( see tactics section about how they can overcome this) and with a constant barrage they will not be able to rauise and lower or recharge them //

Overall ... Tie ( look at tactis) but SW stronger with added weakness of being destroyed as soon as tehy are down

Specal tech ..

i dont like basimng anything on assumnptions.. Trasporters are the federations greatest freind. they can create clones at will ( if they were ever used this way) an dcan transport person from place to place .. i suggest that the reason that transporters donot go throgh scheilds is due more to tey fact that transporter beams must be careful or else the person dies more then they cant go through .. a large sheild as seen on SW and ST would disrupt the beam .. small scale navigatinal sheilds ( witch we should guess SW ships ahve as well due to teh flying debree all; over SW space ) do not disrupt this beam .. so i make the conclusion that transporrters are only useful after the sheilds fall .. even then .. a ISD has 16X the people as a galexy class .. thus it would be a hard fight. replicators .. yes i agree fully .. they are a godsend to the federation people .. lol .. as for holograms .. yes this is also a huge assest for the federation

overall .. Treck kiles SW ass in kool tech .. but transporters still dont work agaist sheilds \

[Himser]

Sublight ..
a ISD goes freeken fast .. watch episode 4 to see what i mean .. im confident that due to the ammount of energy being expelled and how big the ship is they can do everything a federation ship can do engine wise .. the fed ships however are wayyyy moremanuvrable on battle and can get to alredy hurt sides of a ISD before the ISD can rotate.. also i think your analisyis is wromng about enines being weak .. when you have an area of the ship that is designed to pump out huge ammounts of energy and plasma ( or whatever) and is as hot as a sun to wuote someone frkm the novels .. i do not think weponns are going to hurt the ISDs engions mutch .. witch may be why we never see any ship directly attach a ships engines expecllay a ISDs.

Overall .. Tie .. SW and ST speed are the sameish .. wile ST has manuvarability witch i would chalk up a different area then sublight speed

FTL

Hyperspace MUTCH faster ( he sais .5 past lightspeed .. we dont know what that means but it could just as eassaly be the same type of thing as warp .. ie warp 1 is lihghtspeed warp 2 is many times faster then warp one .. ect .. .00 past light equil to arp 1 .. .05 past lighht culd be quil to warp 2 or so .. thats my assumption anyway . we just dont know the facts other then .5 is very fast ) but yes is affected gretly by grav forces .. ot does not say ho greatky tho as we see ethe faklcan very cklose to tatoine when it makes its jump to alderan .. wile this lest the feds ambush impereals liek you said vbefore / with the greater speed of hyperdrive this is at ;east equil .. the empire would quickly learn to send scout ships ajhead iof any majopr vessel .. ( rememebr they do have prob droids that can transmit if they get stoped by a anomoly )

overall impereal win .. with the uise of scouts and the incredble logistics a fast FTL system creates ,.

Tactics ..

i agree with you that federation ships are wayy more manuvrable .. but one thing you forgot to state is that the ISD cannot hit the falcan because it is a 25 m long fast as s*it litle smuggaler ship. the enterpirse Econstitutes 680m more area to hit then the falcan .. thus even with its incresed manuvrability .. it will gat many many hits on it .. because of this i belive the federation will need to use tactics that are common with any small ship vs big .. Hit and run .. lol .. with teh federations replenishing sheilds and their manuvrability .. a hit and run style war would make any stand alone ISD very vunerable .. but the mass walls that are employed in the dominion war .. tahts where the ISDs and their fighters exel . and if they used those tactics agaist teh empire they would lose badly.

and SW has dedicated bombers .. you dont do that unless they carry the firepower that can hurt a capital ship .. thus your exaderation that fighter ships power is limited by their size is only somewhat correct .. a TIE would not do well agaist a fed shiop .. a bomber on teh other hand .. would do quite well ..

Overall.. Tie .. dependsing on what type of tactic is sued agsist the empire ( as i think we have all agreed the em,pire invaded fed space) one sideis better then the other .. you can not always use hit and run tactics ( like invading earth) and the empire wouyld have to learn not to send its ships in one at a time .. or else tehy are gone .. \


overall overall .. due to size and scope of empire tehy would win .. if the federation employed its cloeing transporters and replicated ships it would put up a hell of a fight .. to most likely the point where the empire would attack other less deangerous opponents ( like the dominion, or klingons, or cardasians, or lol the kazon :P )

[Himser]

and yes a tyope III ohasers at 91.2% efficentcy puts out teh same power as 35 grams of coal per second ..

[Himser]

and your making me cringe at the bas acting ..... yes it was terrible .. i choose to ignore those parts .. :P

[Silverspar]

What are you talking about?

First, Darth Vader and the 501'st elite Stormtrooper squadran lead an assault on the base itself while Heavy Vehicles such as the AT-AT's lead the assault on the primary generator for the shields. There were minimal losses. The original plan vader had of course was to sneak up on the rebels and bombard from out of range of their sensors, but ozzel ****ed up.

RotJ, The Emperor gave misinformation to the rebels to lead them to the DS 2, in which imperials came around from the dark side of the moon and trapped the rebel fleet. Meanwhile, the emperors most elite soldiers were stationed on Endor in hiding to ambush any rebel commando's, which they did do. Only losing because of a couple strange plot mechanics, luck, and random events.

Yea, that's two examples, and how many other times was there anything past throwing as much firepower at it as you could. Both examples you gave are throwing all your forces and firepower at something to overwhelm. It's a strategy, but it's a weak strategy, when it comes to military tactics. In all scenarios, the goal was the crush the rebels before they could mount an offensive. The Hoth battle this worked, because the Rebels were not prepared. Endor battle, this failed because the Rebels were going into fight, plaina nd simple.

[Zyrious]

Yea, that's two examples, and how many other times was there anything past throwing as much firepower at it as you could. Both examples you gave are throwing all your forces and firepower at something to overwhelm. It's a strategy, but it's a weak strategy, when it comes to military tactics. In all scenarios, the goal was the crush the rebels before they could mount an offensive. The Hoth battle this worked, because the Rebels were not prepared. Endor battle, this failed because the Rebels were going into fight, plaina nd simple.

What are you talking about? In both cases the Empire used military strategy. Its not about fancy tech and fantasy solutions, its about military strategy and tactics, which they use. Often they'd split forces, set up ambushes, decoy's, etc. etc. all of which is strategy, what more do you want? Magic like in star trek? "I'll remodulate the remodulater to romodulate the enemies remodulodulator and disable their shields".

Just throwing firepower would be sending in all forces directly, where as the empire used 2 pronged attacks, ambushes, and faulty information against their enemy.

[Silverspar]

What are you talking about? In both cases the Empire used military strategy. Its not about fancy tech and fantasy solutions, its about military strategy and tactics, which they use. Often they'd split forces, set up ambushes, decoy's, etc. etc. all of which is strategy, what more do you want? Magic like in star trek? "I'll remodulate the remodulater to romodulate the enemies remodulodulator and disable their shields".

Just throwing firepower would be sending in all forces directly, where as the empire used 2 pronged attacks, ambushes, and faulty information against their enemy.

Umm, you didn't read what I said. It wasn't really a strategy. It was just luring a trap then the end result, throw all your firepower at something till they relent. The Hoth battle was a prime example of this. The Battle of Endor is another example, the ships were just lying in wait, with the exception being the cruisers so the death star could open fire on the frigates of the Rebels.

[vanlore]

Not that the federation would need too but i notice how come non of you star wars fan boys don't take into consideration that 1 star ship could defeat the entire empire? TIME TRAVEL <<<

[Zyrious]

Umm, you didn't read what I said. It wasn't really a strategy. It was just luring a trap then the end result, throw all your firepower at something till they relent. The Hoth battle was a prime example of this. The Battle of Endor is another example, the ships were just lying in wait, with the exception being the cruisers so the death star could open fire on the frigates of the Rebels.

You have a very very unique definition of strategy if two pronged attacks, ambushes, and false intel are not strategy.

[Zyrious]

Not that the federation would need too but i notice how come non of you star wars fan boys don't take into consideration that 1 star ship could defeat the entire empire? TIME TRAVEL <<<

How, exactly, does time travel help the federation? The most they could do was go back in time before the Imperials attacked...

[vanlore]

How, exactly, does time travel help the federation? The most they could do was go back in time before the Imperials attacked...

They could go back farther than that.. And its not hard to see where this is going. They could simply take them before they even became an empire.

The possibilities. are endless.

[Zyrious]

They could go back farther than that.. And its not hard to see where this is going. They could simply take them before they even became an empire.

But how? in our scenario, the Empire is attacking the federation through a wormhole that crosses space time. If a federation ship went back in time, the wormhole would no longer be there. And if they went into the Star Wars Galaxy, Going back in time doesnt do them much good unless they want to start a war with the republic.

[vanlore]

But how? in our scenario, the Empire is attacking the federation through a wormhole that crosses space time. If a federation ship went back in time, the wormhole would no longer be there. And if they went into the Star Wars Galaxy, Going back in time doesnt do them much good unless they want to start a war with the republic.

lol your making me laugh. They don't have to use a worm hole. 2nd use your brain or imagination I could sit here all night in come up with different things they could change in the past. LOL they could go back and find the time where the empire was first being form then go back more and take out the empire from even coming into existence.

Hello!! they could go threw the worm hole and then go back to the past .... cloak enter worm hole and time travel = dead empire. 1 ship......

ok time travel

Ok ill just pull an idea off the top of my head.. Lets say in the present they have a wormhole. Once they go threw that wormhole they can detect how far they have traveld. Now they know were the empire came from. Or the computing power and highly advance sensors of the Federation can infiltrate and penetrate all the Empire's logs and history and assimilate any information as to there origins.

Now sense they know the empires origins lets say they take half of star fleet and prepare to go back in time to destroy the empire.

Now lets for the sake of your argument that for some reason they didn't just go threw the wrom hole and then go into the past like anyone with a brain would. And lets say just to make it harder that the worm hole is not there that far back... Ok well they already know the origins of the empire by assimilating there computers logs or just by going threw the worm hole.


SO they send half of star fleet back in time FAR enough BACK in time to REACH there destination on time to destroy the empire. Lets say the entire fleet gets there too early or too late.. No problem they can just time travle once they are there anyway to the correct time...

So in all scenarios The Federation wins. Even with one ship they can take out the empire.

The funny part is that they would not even need to use time travel to defeat the empire.

[JadeEngima]

lol your making me laugh. They don't have to use a worm hole. 2nd use your brain or imagination I could sit here all night in come up with different things they could change in the past. LOL they could go back and find the time where the empire was first being form then go back more and take out the empire from even coming into existence.

Hello!! they could go threw the worm hole and then go back to the past .... cloak enter worm hole and time travel = dead empire. 1 ship......

ok time travel

Ok ill just pull an idea off the top of my head.. Lets say in the present they have a wormhole. Once they go threw that wormhole they can detect how far they have traveld. Now they know were the empire came from. Or the computing power and highly advance sensors of the Federation can infiltrate and penetrate all the Empire's logs and history and assimilate any information as to there origins.

Now sense they know the empires origins lets say they take half of star fleet and prepare to go back in time to destroy the empire.

Now lets for the sake of your argument that for some reason they didn't just go threw the wrom hole and then go into the past like anyone with a brain would. And lets say just to make it harder that the worm hole is not there that far back... Ok well they already know the origins of the empire by assimilating there computers logs or just by going threw the worm hole.


SO they send half of star fleet back in time FAR enough BACK in time to REACH there destination on time to destroy the empire. Lets say the entire fleet gets there too early or too late.. No problem they can just time travle once they are there anyway to the correct time...

So in all scenarios The Federation wins. Even with one ship they can take out the empire.

The funny part is that they would not even need to use time travel to defeat the empire.

Okay, hang on, I need to run this through the Universal Translator real quick... :rolleyes:

[vanlore]

But how? in our scenario, the Empire is attacking the federation through a wormhole that crosses space time. If a federation ship went back in time, the wormhole would no longer be there. And if they went into the Star Wars Galaxy, Going back in time doesnt do them much good unless they want to start a war with the republic.

Heck lol another idea.. Sense you bring up the republic they could just meet with the republic back in time like you say and give them all data and information on the empire on top of that then go back in time and continue there mission in my post above.

The fact that you don't even consider time travel as an advantage in your post says that you loose all credibility for debate and I believe that you have been biassed in all of your arguments the same way you appear to be narrow minded with time travel. Therefore you discredit yourself from logic in my opinion.

[Silverspar]

You have a very very unique definition of strategy if two pronged attacks, ambushes, and false intel are not strategy.

The result was still teh same, which you keep boldly ignoring. Teh attack was nothing more than sending everything they had at the Rebels, on both occassions. There was no actions of sabotage, no attempt to disable their facilities past destroying their generators, nothing. Just the complete obliteration.

[vanlore]

How, exactly, does time travel help the federation? The most they could do was go back in time before the Imperials attacked...

Exactly they could go back in time and assassinate or beam up Palpatine, Padmé Amidala and Bail Organa. Or beam up there daddy's or mommys before they were born and neuter them, wipe there memories and send them back. Then no more Empire.

Heck lets beam up Count Dooku and Palpatine put them away for life... or kill them.

I could think of a million ways they could change the past to defeat the empire. its endless lol.

The threat to the galaxy posed by the existence of the Omega Particle was believed to be so great that the Prime Directive could be disregarded if necessary to carry out the Omega Directive.

This could say..... The threat to the galaxy posed by the existence of the Empire was believed to be so great that the prime Directive could be disregarded if necessary to carry out the Time Stomp Directive But the Empire is not really a threat to the Federation anyway....

Star Trek wins. If you can't see this then you lie to yourself...

[vp21ct]

Exactly they could go back in time and assassinate or beam up Palpatine, Padmé Amidala and Bail Organa. Or beam up there daddy's or mommys before they were born and neuter them, wipe there memories and send them back. Then no more Empire.

Heck lets beam up Count Dooku and Palpatine put them away for life... or kill them.

I could think of a million ways they could change the past to defeat the empire. its endless lol.

The threat to the galaxy posed by the existence of the Omega Particle was believed to be so great that the Prime Directive could be disregarded if necessary to carry out the Omega Directive.

This could say..... The threat to the galaxy posed by the existence of the Empire was believed to be so great that the prime Directive could be disregarded if necessary to carry out the Time Stomp Directive But the Empire is not really a threat to the Federation anyway....

Star Trek wins. If you can't see this then you lie to yourself...



Temproal Prime Directive.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

1. DAMN!!! That was a LOT of posting.... No way I'm gonna be able to respond to a fraction of that over lunch...

2. No time travel. Period. <---- That little dot there, see it? That. No.

3. NO TIME TRAVEL!

Besides, the Federation doesn't even have any reliable means of traveling through time. They've done it a few times, but outside of the fluke/omnipower stuff, it was extremely rare. In ST:IV, it was an extreme risk with insane calculations that Spock had to perform, and ultimately, he had to make his best guess for the return trip. There's no indication that it's been something that anyone's been able to reproduce, even with the proof that it was possible and Spock's information. In FC, they were recreating something the Borg had done, which allowed them to return to their own time. Recreating the conditions they scanned was all they did, and without knowing how the conditions to travel to any specific point in time were calculated, etc., they were short a reliable means of time travel again (assuming it was something they could even recreate again, without equipment from the Borg ship or residual traces from a recent temporal wormhole).

So, anyway, no time travel.


As for my figures on Trek weapons/shield power... I'm basing them on what we know to be possible with M/AM reactors (E=mc^2, more or less), and the demonstrated yields of torpedoes against measureable objects (asteroids, planets). In both TNG and VOY, we see examples of Photon torpedoes used against asteroids, demonstrating yields that would need to be in the hundreds of megatons, if not more, to achieve the effects seen and stated. In TNG "Skin of Evil", we see a torpedo detonated against a planet of approximate Earth size (based on approximate Earth gravity), generating a fireball of a size that would suggest a multi-gigaton blast. In DS9 "The Die is Cast", during the Rom/Card assault on the decoy planet, we see similarly-sized explosions, and one massive fireball that, assuming an approximately Earth-sized planet, would be larger than any two European nations combined (save Ukraine), and reports of the opening volley from 20 ships, which lasted less than a minute, state that 30% of the planetary crust had been destroyed (SDN claims these fireballs are in the megaton range at most, due to duration and lack of sub-orbital projected debris, though we only glimpse the actual effects of the weapons on the planet briefly before the camera shifts away from the viewscreen, and it is made quite clear that the planet was covered by dense layers of cloud formations, which obscure our view of the initial effects of the attack).

Those kinds of explosions require releases of energy in the high petajoule range at an absolute minimum, with low exajoule ranges much more likely. Star Trek beam outputs and shield strengths have to be in comparable ranges, or photon torpedoes would be insanely powerful super weapons, which they clearly aren't. That puts Star Trek beam and pulse outputs in the high petajoule to low exajoule range, and Trek shield outputs and reserve strengths well beyond that.


The most powerful reference to Wars weapons outputs that I am aware of comes from the RotS novelization, which notes the lightshow in the sky over Coruscant as being an exchange of bolts capable of 'vaporizing a small town'. This page (http://st-v-sw.net/STSWvapetown.html) from ST-v-SW.net gives a pretty thorough analysis of what that could mean, and which bolts would be visible from the city world below, with a final result of ~1.5 megatons worth of energy per heavy turbolaser bolt on an ISD. With a 2-second rate of fire per gun, and 68 HTL-size guns, an ISD would put out 102 megatons or a little short of 427 petajoules per full salvo (from all guns), with a sustained output of 51 megatons per second, or 213 petajoules per second (213 petawatts).

Even bumping that up to 5 megatons per bolt, and assuming that an ISD's main guns constitute only a quarter of her total firepower across all her batteries, that would be 5 x 68 x 4 = 1360 megatons from all guns (to account for guns with much lower yields but much higher rates of fire, we'll assume that's from a 2-second salvo). That's in the approximate range of a single photon torpedo, spread over 2 seconds.

Unless there are higher stated or indicated yields that I'm not aware of or have missed (excluding the Death Star), the Empire would be too outmatched, in terms of firepower, to wage a successful war against the Federation, even with vastly superior numbers.

[EnsignSkylarkThibedeau]

There was a SW mod for ST Armada. It was fun pitting the Empire against the Federation. Both sides were balanced in play. SW ships still mined Dilithium.

[vanlore]

1. DAMN!!! That was a LOT of posting.... No way I'm gonna be able to respond to a fraction of that over lunch...

2. No time travel. Period. <---- That little dot there, see it? That. No.

3. NO TIME TRAVEL!

Besides, the Federation doesn't even have any reliable means of traveling through time. They've done it a few times, but outside of the fluke/omnipower stuff, it was extremely rare. In ST:IV, it was an extreme risk with insane calculations that Spock had to perform, and ultimately, he had to make his best guess for the return trip. There's no indication that it's been something that anyone's been able to reproduce, even with the proof that it was possible and Spock's information. In FC, they were recreating something the Borg had done, which allowed them to return to their own time. Recreating the conditions they scanned was all they did, and without knowing how the conditions to travel to any specific point in time were calculated, etc., they were short a reliable means of time travel again (assuming it was something they could even recreate again, without equipment from the Borg ship or residual traces from a recent temporal wormhole).

So, anyway, no time travel.

.

Umm I'm sorry here but what reason do you have that we may not consider Time Travel. It is Canon and that would be unfair or unrealistic to not consider it. You simply tell me flat out no and because its rare?

Explain your logic

The fact that it is rare does not mean I can not consider it. And I do not consider it rare anywyas.

. And you do not need a temporal wormhole or borg ship or residual traces from anything to go back in time in Star Trek. There are plenty of ways Some that come to mind off the top of my head that are older ways in TOS is slingshot effect time travel method using the Sun. The planet that Count Dooku and Palpatine are on im pritty sure has a sun near by or for that matter most planets with life.

(Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)

((Kirk decides the only way to save Earth and Starfleet is to travel back in time, acquire some whales and bring them back to the 23rd century. Kirk advises Starfleet of his plan, and performs the slingshot effect time travel method using the Sun. )))

The slingshot effect, also known as the light-speed breakaway factor, is a method of time travel that requires a starship to travel at warp speed towards a star.

There's no indication that it's been something that anyone's been able to reproduce,

Sorry Dragon but I would have to disagree not only can they Time Travel many different ways. They can reproduce the effects.

Cochrane welcomes a trio of Vulcans to Earth. Picard bids Lily a brief farewell and returns with his crew to his own ship. By recreating the temporal vortex that brought them there, the crew of the Enterprise-E departs the 21st century. ---Star Trek: First Contact.

Star Trek time travel stories

Star Trek TOS

The Naked Time" • "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" • "The City on the Edge of Forever" • "Assignment: Earth" • "All Our Yesterdays" • Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home • Star Trek

Star Trek: The Animated Series

"Yesteryear"

Star Trek: The Next Generation

"We'll Always Have Paris" • "Time Squared" • "Yesterday's Enterprise" • "Captain's Holiday" • "A Matter of Time" • "Cause and Effect" • "Time's Arrow" • "Tapestry" • "Timescape" • "Firstborn" • "All Good Things..." • Star Trek Generations • Star Trek: First Contact.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

"Past Tense" • "Visionary" • "The Visitor" • "Little Green Men" • "Accession" • "Trials and Tribble-ations" • "Children of Time" • "Wrongs Darker than Death or Night" • "Time's Orphan"

Star Trek: Voyager

"Time and Again" • "Eye of the Needle" • "Future's End" • "Before and After" • "Year of Hell" • "Timeless" • "Relativity" • "Fury" • "Shattered" • "Endgame"

Star Trek: Enterprise

"Cold Front" • "Shockwave" • "Future Tense" • "Twilight" • "Carpenter Street" • "Azati Prime" • "E²" • "Zero Hour" • "Storm Front"



Temproal Prime Directive.

Uhh Watch all the episodes. They don't always follow the Temproal Prime Drective. lol. So if the empire is such a threat as some of the pro wars people then why would they not consider it?

[Noonien]

Oh this eternal debate.

In an all-out conflict, Star Trek wins. Simply because of the resourcefulness of the individuals expressed again and again over the ENTIRE span of the fiction. Star Wars, more or less, is akin to a game of lemmings. Don't get me wrong, HOOGE Star Wars fan going back way before I even knew about Star Trek, but it's all so SIMPLE in terms of scale that the only thing we have to understand here is that for every million stormtroopers (read: lemmings, mooks) there is one uber guy/gal/alien/sentient machine controlling them.

I mean, seriously. If the USS Enterprise, ANY of them, Kirk, Picard, hell probably even Archer, encountered a Death Star, that small thermal exhaust port would have lit up on the screen like a lighthouse from sea, and in goes a single proton torpedo and it's good game.

A graduate Ensign of Starfleet Academy would be in CHARGE of a Death Star. A Chief Petty Officer like Miles O'brian would be a Fleet Admiral because of his experience.

In terms of technology and science Star Wars puts up absolutely no basis for it's scientific breakthroughs, they're just THERE. Every moisture farmer and his wampa rat has a protocol droid, in the Star Trek universe theres only been one 'sentient' mechanical construct, Data, who has a hell of a lot less 'personality' than C3PO ever did.

Honestly Star Wars is far too 'all over the place' to know the extent of its scientific potential. But if no other arguement gets through to anyone it's that in space, Star Trek rules supreme, game over. No I don't care about your Jedi, Thrawn, your Yuuzhan Vong. You're nothing but a First Contact war that's over in 2 and a half hours or half a series.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Umm I'm sorry here but what reason do you have that we may not consider Time Travel. It is Canon and that would be unfair or unrealistic to not consider it. You simply tell me flat out no and because its rare?

Because it's my thread, it's my debate, and I said so. Don't argue with a hungry dragon. } : = 8 |

And yes, because it is rare. It is so rare, in fact, that we have only a handful of instances in which it was deliberately undertaken by a non-omnipower, something like the Krenim time ship (VOY "Year of Hell"), or as a part of the far-distant-future Temporal War/Cold War. To my knowledge, there have been only two times in which Fed ships deliberately traveled through time, ST:IV and the return trip in FC. Everything else was some sort of phenomena or the action of an omni-power or ultra-advanced technology from an ultra-advanced future or ancient culture.


If you still disagree, we can always discuss it over lunch. } : = 8 )

[Richman12]

Forgot to mention about the Premonition class ships though I know thier not canon Star Trek exepect if you are using Star Trek Armada plot line.

Even then their was only 1 of them. Unless the captian of the Premonition gave Starfleet a copy of thier computer cores data which would include the ships spec's.

[Admiral.of.Starfleet]

Because it's my thread, it's my debate, and I said so. Don't argue with a hungry dragon. } : = 8 |

And yes, because it is rare. It is so rare, in fact, that we have only a handful of instances in which it was deliberately undertaken by a non-omnipower, something like the Krenim time ship (VOY "Year of Hell"), or as a part of the far-distant-future Temporal War/Cold War. To my knowledge, there have been only two times in which Fed ships deliberately traveled through time, ST:IV and the return trip in FC. Everything else was some sort of phenomena or the action of an omni-power or ultra-advanced technology from an ultra-advanced future or ancient culture.


If you still disagree, we can always discuss it over lunch. } : = 8 )

Add TOS: Assignment Earth to your list. :D

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_%28episode%29

Not only did they do it by themselves with limited technology but it was also an assigment given by Starfleet command.

[vanlore]

Because it's my thread, it's my debate, and I said so. Don't argue with a hungry dragon. } : = 8 |

Don't argue..? I was under the impression we were all here to debate, if I am incorrect let me know. You did not say in your first post that parts of canon will not be supported as evidence and for what reasons. If so then you should have stated all canon from the films that will not be presented as evidence before dismissing it. Also logic says to ignore parts of canon in the context of your debate instead of disproving it would be a incorrect approach. How can you have a debate when you do not follow logic? If you do not agree with Time Travel then you should present evidence of how unlikely it is or point out the lack there of instead of just ignoring facts.


For the sake of consistent public discussion and debate, what can be supported and established by evidence, math, applicable laws of physics, etc. will be considered fact (or very strong theory as applicable) within the context of this debate, however, so even if you disagree with something, if it can be proven within this discussion, it has the force of fact within this discussion

So from your Quote above I will continue my *debate* with the context of your thread.

And yes, because it is rare. It is so rare, in fact, that we have only a handful of instances in which it was deliberately undertaken by a non-omnipower, something like the Krenim time ship (VOY "Year of Hell"), or as a part of the far-distant-future Temporal War/Cold War. To my knowledge, there have been only two times in which Fed ships deliberately traveled through time, ST:IV and the return trip in FC. Everything else was some sort of phenomena or the action of an omni-power or ultra-advanced technology from an ultra-advanced future or ancient culture.

If you still disagree, we can always discuss it over lunch. } : = 8 )

You keep implying that the evidence is not a possibility because it is rare. That is incorrect. Even if it is rare that does not mean it is not a possibility.

I disagree that it is as rare as you say.

Trials and Tribble-ations"
DS9, Episode 5x06

When Temporal Investigations arrives on Deep Space 9, Sisko recounts how he and the crew of the Defiant traveled back in time to the 23rd century to prevent the assassination of Captain James T. Kirk during the original Enterprise's mission to Space Station K-7.

The investigators call Kirk a menace, saying that Kirk's file, containing seventeen separate temporal violations, is the biggest on record. They ask what the Enterprise was doing and Sisko says it was orbiting one of the old Deep Space stations, K-7, exactly one hundred and five years, one month, and twelve days previous, on Stardate 4523.7, a Friday.

It also make's me wonder how many Federation people are in those files. This above implys that there are allot more Time Travel going on than you think. And you said you knew of two instances? Kirk has 17 violations. In the episodes we have of kirk Traveling threw time. If you count them or read threw the scrips you will see that he didn't break no were near that many Temporal rules. So that means the other many Rules he broke must of been on a different occasions of Time Traveling.

I have been busy but I will make time too later research this and find more evidence to support my belief that it is not as rare as some would think.

Also you can not claim disapproval of a canon fact by your own rules of debate simply on the assumption of something being rare.

[Zyrious]

1. DAMN!!! That was a LOT of posting.... No way I'm gonna be able to respond to a fraction of that over lunch...

2. No time travel. Period. <---- That little dot there, see it? That. No.

3. NO TIME TRAVEL!

Besides, the Federation doesn't even have any reliable means of traveling through time. They've done it a few times, but outside of the fluke/omnipower stuff, it was extremely rare. In ST:IV, it was an extreme risk with insane calculations that Spock had to perform, and ultimately, he had to make his best guess for the return trip. There's no indication that it's been something that anyone's been able to reproduce, even with the proof that it was possible and Spock's information. In FC, they were recreating something the Borg had done, which allowed them to return to their own time. Recreating the conditions they scanned was all they did, and without knowing how the conditions to travel to any specific point in time were calculated, etc., they were short a reliable means of time travel again (assuming it was something they could even recreate again, without equipment from the Borg ship or residual traces from a recent temporal wormhole).

So, anyway, no time travel.


As for my figures on Trek weapons/shield power... I'm basing them on what we know to be possible with M/AM reactors (E=mc^2, more or less), and the demonstrated yields of torpedoes against measureable objects (asteroids, planets). In both TNG and VOY, we see examples of Photon torpedoes used against asteroids, demonstrating yields that would need to be in the hundreds of megatons, if not more, to achieve the effects seen and stated. In TNG "Skin of Evil", we see a torpedo detonated against a planet of approximate Earth size (based on approximate Earth gravity), generating a fireball of a size that would suggest a multi-gigaton blast. In DS9 "The Die is Cast", during the Rom/Card assault on the decoy planet, we see similarly-sized explosions, and one massive fireball that, assuming an approximately Earth-sized planet, would be larger than any two European nations combined (save Ukraine), and reports of the opening volley from 20 ships, which lasted less than a minute, state that 30% of the planetary crust had been destroyed (SDN claims these fireballs are in the megaton range at most, due to duration and lack of sub-orbital projected debris, though we only glimpse the actual effects of the weapons on the planet briefly before the camera shifts away from the viewscreen, and it is made quite clear that the planet was covered by dense layers of cloud formations, which obscure our view of the initial effects of the attack).

Those kinds of explosions require releases of energy in the high petajoule range at an absolute minimum, with low exajoule ranges much more likely. Star Trek beam outputs and shield strengths have to be in comparable ranges, or photon torpedoes would be insanely powerful super weapons, which they clearly aren't. That puts Star Trek beam and pulse outputs in the high petajoule to low exajoule range, and Trek shield outputs and reserve strengths well beyond that.


The most powerful reference to Wars weapons outputs that I am aware of comes from the RotS novelization, which notes the lightshow in the sky over Coruscant as being an exchange of bolts capable of 'vaporizing a small town'. This page (http://st-v-sw.net/STSWvapetown.html) from ST-v-SW.net gives a pretty thorough analysis of what that could mean, and which bolts would be visible from the city world below, with a final result of ~1.5 megatons worth of energy per heavy turbolaser bolt on an ISD. With a 2-second rate of fire per gun, and 68 HTL-size guns, an ISD would put out 102 megatons or a little short of 427 petajoules per full salvo (from all guns), with a sustained output of 51 megatons per second, or 213 petajoules per second (213 petawatts).

Even bumping that up to 5 megatons per bolt, and assuming that an ISD's main guns constitute only a quarter of her total firepower across all her batteries, that would be 5 x 68 x 4 = 1360 megatons from all guns (to account for guns with much lower yields but much higher rates of fire, we'll assume that's from a 2-second salvo). That's in the approximate range of a single photon torpedo, spread over 2 seconds.

Unless there are higher stated or indicated yields that I'm not aware of or have missed (excluding the Death Star), the Empire would be too outmatched, in terms of firepower, to wage a successful war against the Federation, even with vastly superior numbers.

You're going to need to state how much Anti-matter you actually think they are using and how exactly you know this for getting your power output because "hundreds of Megatons" is a very bold claim. Especially since its stated that Photon torpedo's only hold 1.5 kilograms of Anti-matter, which is a 64 megaton explosion. (be aware though, the writers themselves admitted to not knowing what anti-matter was, thus resulting in many over-the-top technobabble statements).

However, 1.5 is an extremely rediculous number, given its origin. A small american town getting hit by a turbolaser blast because of the term "Could vaporize a small town" in the novelization? It very easily could have been refferring to a small couscaunti town, given the context, or simply been for dramatic effect, we dont know, the value is nearly unuseable except for those aiming there "uber" photons at Star Wars.


And again, we see Star Wars power-Output examples with things like the Death Star, and Planetary Shields that are *invulnerable* to any kind of weapons fire. And these planetary shields arent exactly large, either.. And if you use your low end values of 5 megtons per blast and a total of 1360 megatons every 2 seconds from a single ship and consider The Entire imperial fleet could not breach the rebel shield on hoth with orbital bombardment, you see thats a strong shield. That's a lot of a power from that little building. Somehow, though, i doubt imperial weapons are that weak.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

You're going to need to state how much Anti-matter you actually think they are using and how exactly you know this for getting your power output because "hundreds of Megatons" is a very bold claim. Especially since its stated that Photon torpedo's only hold 1.5 kilitograms of Anti-matter, which is a 64 megaton explosion. (be aware though, the writers themselves admitted to not knowing what anti-matter was, thus resulting in many over-the-top technobabble statements).

Actually, 1.5 kilotons of anti-matter (mixed with 1.5 kilotons of matter) would generate a 64,000,000 megaton explosion. } ; = 8 )

The TNG TM lists a warhead yield of 64 megatons from 1.5 kilograms of matter and 1.5 kilograms of anti-matter (a 100% efficient reaction would yield 64.53 megatons, but that's nitpicking). To get an explosive yield of some 1000 megatons, you would need an energy release of 4,184 petajoules, or about 46.48888 kilograms (we'll call it 47 - a little over 21 lbs.) of matter converted to energy. Essentially, 23.5 kilograms of matter, and 23.5 kilograms of anti-matter. In deuterium form, the entirety of the explosive's fuel package could stored in less than .3 cubic meters if chilled to 18 K (deuterium's triple point) without any compression. Presumably, given their fine control over magnetic and gravimetric fields, Starfleet engineers would be able to design containment pods to house the warhead's payload in a fairly small space, and then generate the reaction in another relatively small space.



You're also ignoring that Venators were a First generation destroyer, whereas ISD's have had advancement over 20 years. However, 1.5 is an extremely rediculous number, given its origin. A small american town getting hit by a turbolaser blast because of the term "Could vaporize a small town" in the novelization? It very easily could have been refferring to a small couscaunti town, given the context, or simply been for dramatic effect, we dont know, the value is nearly unuseable except for those aiming there "uber" photons at Star Wars.

It's not a definitive example, and much extrapolation was achieved to get it, yes, but much of the extrapolation is sound logic (including the comparison to Mos Eisley, the closest thing we've seen to a 'small town' in Wars, and examination of the possibility that the usage was from the perspective of a Coruscanti with their idea of a 'small town' on Coruscant, which is hard to apply given the fact that the entire planet is one giant city).

I agree that it's not conclusive, but I haven't seen anything else in Wars (outside of the DS) that has demonstrated comparable or greater yields.


And again, we see Star Wars power-Output examples with things like the Death Star, and Planetary Shields that are *invulnerable* to any kind of weapons fire. And these planetary shields arent exactly large, either. This completely undervalues imperial Weapons.

1. We don't know how the Death Star's weapon works. The common assumption is that it is a direct energy application weapon, but there is no definitive evidence of that.

2. There has actually been no reference to planetary shields in the canon, only to the Rebel's theater shields, which were strong enough to repel any bombardment by the Imperial fleet that was there/arriving.

[Flatfingers]

You have a very very unique definition of strategy if two pronged attacks, ambushes, and false intel are not strategy.

Zyrious, for what it's worth, there actually is some room for argument about whether those things are strategies or whether they're probably best regarded as actions at the tactical or operational level.

Tactics is about using local environmental features to achieve superiority over an opponent in a relatively small area over a relatively short period of time. So things like ambushes are almost always tactical actions, rather than implementations of a strategic plan.

The level at which a "two-pronged attack" applies depends on what kind of "attacks" we're talking about. If you just mean swinging a sword or shooting a bow or gun at an individual, then it is tactical. If it's about using an infantry platoon to engage an enemy to allow your cavalry unit to sweep their flank, that's also tactics. Having your Marines threaten to storm north through Kuwait City while your lethally fast armor pulls a "Hail Mary" from the west would be a two-pronged attack at an operational level (though admittedly a pretty high level of operational action!).

A two-pronged attack at a strategic level would be more like sending in troops and ships to control a country's major seaports while also threatening that country's oil pipeline. It's still a two-pronged attack, but the elements being attacked at the strategic level are much larger in size and span a much greater period of time than operational or tactical actions.

And as for using false intel (the so-called "disinformation"), that's usually more of an operations-level activity than a tactical move, since it usually takes some time for results to develop from feeding false information to an enemy -- they have to have time to react. It could also be a strategic tactic, but I would argue that if it is, it's usually a bad one. At that level and with today's technology it's too easy for your opponent to discover whether you're telling the truth... and being known as a liar will not be an effective strategy when the conflict ends.

I might add that there's also a level known as "grand strategy," which is the level that Palpatine was playing on when (in what you might think of as a two-pronged attack) he took over the Senate politically while generating a fake rebellion in order to build a militarily-organized police force.

So really, if there's any lesson to be taken from all this stuff, it's probably that defining something as "tactics" or "operations" or "strategy" really depends more on the physical and temporal scope of the arena than on the style of force being applied.

I've got a more detailed -- and more Star Trek Online-oriented -- discussion of this stuff here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2006/01/strategy-vs-tactics.html) and here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2007/04/combat-modes-and-player-ranks-in-star.html) if anyone's curious.

(Side rant: I was watching XPlay's coverage of the Leipzig Games Convention today... and yet another developer incorrectly referred to tactical gameplay as "strategic." Sigh. It's not a big deal when one of us regular folks uses the wrong term, but why should I buy a supposedly tactical game from a developer who clearly doesn't understand what these terms actually mean? I certainly am not claiming that I'm any kind of expert on the subject, but if you're the designer of a 'tactical" game, shouldn't you at least understand the basic meaning of the words at least as well as a rank amateur?)

--Flatfingers

[Zyrious]

Actually, 1.5 kilotons of anti-matter (mixed with 1.5 kilotons of matter) would generate a 64,000,000 megaton explosion. } ; = 8 )

The TNG TM lists a warhead yield of 64 megatons from 1.5 kilograms of matter and 1.5 kilograms of anti-matter (a 100% efficient reaction would yield 64.53 megatons, but that's nitpicking). To get an explosive yield of some 1000 megatons, you would need an energy release of 4,184 petajoules, or about 46.48888 kilograms (we'll call it 47 - a little over 21 lbs.) of matter converted to energy. Essentially, 23.5 kilograms of matter, and 23.5 kilograms of anti-matter. In deuterium form, the entirety of the explosive's fuel package could stored in less than .3 cubic meters if chilled to 18 K (deuterium's triple point) without any compression. Presumably, given their fine control over magnetic and gravimetric fields, Starfleet engineers would be able to design containment pods to house the warhead's payload in a fairly small space, and then generate the reaction in another relatively small space.





It's not a definitive example, and much extrapolation was achieved to get it, yes, but much of the extrapolation is sound logic (including the comparison to Mos Eisley, the closest thing we've seen to a 'small town' in Wars, and examination of the possibility that the usage was from the perspective of a Coruscanti with their idea of a 'small town' on Coruscant, which is hard to apply given the fact that the entire planet is one giant city).

I agree that it's not conclusive, but I haven't seen anything else in Wars (outside of the DS) that has demonstrated comparable or greater yields.




1. We don't know how the Death Star's weapon works. The common assumption is that it is a direct energy application weapon, but there is no definitive evidence of that.

2. There has actually been no reference to planetary shields in the canon, only to the Rebel's theater shields, which were strong enough to repel any bombardment by the Imperial fleet that was there/arriving.

My post was somewhat edited. You caught me in the middle of an Edit. Bad Dragon, you reply too fast! Also, when i say planetary shield, i use it in the same vein as those in SW, as in a planetary-based shield capable of encompassing a certain amount of territory (OR a shield generator based on a planet). I dont really mean "Shield encompassing entire planet". Which it didnt, as in Hoth vader told veers to land his assault force outside of the rebel shield and then proceed to the generator.

[Zyrious]

Zyrious, for what it's worth, there actually is some room for argument about whether those things are strategies or whether they're probably best regarded as actions at the tactical or operational level.

Tactics is about using local environmental features to achieve superiority over an opponent in a relatively small area over a relatively short period of time. So things like ambushes are almost always tactical actions, rather than implementations of a strategic plan.

The level at which a "two-pronged attack" applies depends on what kind of "attacks" we're talking about. If you just mean swinging a sword or shooting a bow or gun at an individual, then it is tactical. If it's about using an infantry platoon to engage an enemy to allow your cavalry unit to sweep their flank, that's also tactics. Having your Marines threaten to storm north through Kuwait City while your lethally fast armor pulls a "Hail Mary" from the west would be a two-pronged attack at an operational level (though admittedly a pretty high level of operational action!).

A two-pronged attack at a strategic level would be more like sending in troops and ships to control a country's major seaports while also threatening that country's oil pipeline. It's still a two-pronged attack, but the elements being attacked at the strategic level are much larger in size and span a much greater period of time than operational or tactical actions.

And as for using false intel (the so-called "disinformation"), that's usually more of an operations-level activity than a tactical move, since it usually takes some time for results to develop from feeding false information to an enemy -- they have to have time to react. It could also be a strategic tactic, but I would argue that if it is, it's usually a bad one. At that level and with today's technology it's too easy for your opponent to discover whether you're telling the truth... and being known as a liar will not be an effective strategy when the conflict ends.

I might add that there's also a level known as "grand strategy," which is the level that Palpatine was playing on when (in what you might think of as a two-pronged attack) he took over the Senate politically while generating a fake rebellion in order to build a militarily-organized police force.

So really, if there's any lesson to be taken from all this stuff, it's probably that defining something as "tactics" or "operations" or "strategy" really depends more on the physical and temporal scope of the arena than on the style of force being applied.

I've got a more detailed -- and more Star Trek Online-oriented -- discussion of this stuff here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2006/01/strategy-vs-tactics.html) and here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2007/04/combat-modes-and-player-ranks-in-star.html) if anyone's curious.

(Side rant: I was watching XPlay's coverage of the Leipzig Games Convention today... and yet another developer incorrectly referred to tactical gameplay as "strategic." Sigh. It's not a big deal when one of us regular folks uses the wrong term, but why should I buy a supposedly tactical game from a developer who clearly doesn't understand what these terms actually mean? I certainly am not claiming that I'm any kind of expert on the subject, but if you're the designer of a 'tactical" game, shouldn't you at least understand the basic meaning of the words at least as well as a rank amateur?)

--Flatfingers

Good post Flatfingers. Appreciate the insight.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Don't argue..? I was under the impression we were all here to debate, if I am incorrect let me know. You did not say in your first post that parts of canon will not be supported as evidence and for what reasons. If so then you should have stated all canon from the films that will not be presented as evidence before dismissing it. Also logic says to ignore parts of canon in the context of your debate instead of disproving it would be a incorrect approach. How can you have a debate when you do not follow logic? If you do not agree with Time Travel then you should present evidence of how unlikely it is or point out the lack there of instead of just ignoring facts.

Because this is not a debate about time travel. I did not start this thread for it to devolve into the "we can go back in time, n00bz, we winrarz!!" nonsense that you presented with your first post on the matter. The Federation has shown no ability to control its starships' happenstance travels through the temporal dimension, and so it cannot be employed as any kind of reliable weapon. This isn't about who can travel through time better, it's not really fun that way to say, "We have time travel, we win." It's cheating.




So from your Quote above I will continue my *debate* with the context of your thread.

And in that context, you would still loose, because the Federation does not control time travel. Yes, its ships have traveled through time, and yes, in the far distant future, the Federation will master time travel, but this is not the far-distant-future Federation, and traveling through time and being able to control your travels through time are two very different things. The Federation can do the former, but not the latter.



You keep implying that the evidence is not a possibility because it is rare. That is incorrect. Even if it is rare that does not mean it is not a possibility.

And you're essentially saying that just because we have seen some Federation ships travel through time, all Federation/Starfleet ships can travel through time at will.


I disagree that it is as rare as you say.

Oh, we've seen plenty of time-traveling, the Enterprises, Voyager, the Defiant, they've all been sent through time on many occasions. But, to my knowledge, only twice did they deliberately and controllably do it on their own (and one of those is questionable).

Trials and Tribble-ations"
DS9, Episode 5x06

Defiant didn't go back in time on their own, they were sent back in time by one of the Bajoran Orbs, one of the devices created by the Wormhole Aliens. They figured out how to use it to get back, yes, but whether it was still useful after that or not was never verified (and knowing the Temporal Integrity Commission, if it was still functional, it would have been confiscated and probably destroyed).



Also you can not claim disapproval of a canon fact by your own rules of debate simply on the assumption of something being rare.

And my rules also include the unacceptability of using time travel as a 'beats-all-no-matter-what' device.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

My post was somewhat edited. You caught me in the middle of an Edit. Bad Dragon, you reply too fast!

MAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! And all the world shall be MINE!!! AHAHAHAHAaa... ehem. Right. >.> } : = 8 )


Also, when i say planetary shield, i use it in the same vein as those in SW, as in a planetary-based shield capable of encompassing a certain amount of territory (OR a shield generator based on a planet). I dont really mean "Shield encompassing entire planet". Which it didnt, as in Hoth vader told veers to land his assault force outside of the rebel shield and then proceed to the generator.

Ah, I see. I've seen a lot of people try to claim that Wars has demonstrated planetary shields, many of whom have used Hoth as a major example, and I thought that's what you were doing as well. I'm glad to see I was mistaken. } : = 8 )

[Admiral.of.Starfleet]

Add TOS: Assignment Earth to your list. :D

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_%28episode%29

Not only did they do it by themselves with limited technology but it was also an assigment given by Starfleet command.

Ill quote myself Ilithi since you completely ignored my post. I dont think time travel should be used as a weapon in this debate, but you continue to ignore the fact that Starfleet has used controlled time travel.

[President_Shinzon]

Ah, the age-old argument... which I refuese to get involved with.

Both are great Sci-fi's and both have their pro's and Con's.

Why can't we like both and accept both as what they are, great epics?

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Ill quote myself Ilithi since you completely ignored my post. I dont think time travel should be used as a weapon in this debate, but you continue to ignore the fact that Starfleet has used controlled time travel.

Hmm... I'd forgotten about that episode... It seems odd, though, that we never see this used any other time. You would think that, in times of great and dire need, the Federation would consider using limited time travel, or someone would at least suggest it.

[Zyrious]

Hmm... I'd forgotten about that episode... It seems odd, though, that we never see this used any other time. You would think that, in times of great and dire need, the Federation would consider using limited time travel, or someone would at least suggest it.

It could very easily mean that the producers simply retconned the difficulty of time travel in later series.

[Flatfingers]

You would think that, in times of great and dire need, the Federation would consider using limited time travel, or someone would at least suggest it.

Perhaps they do... and then the Timecops show up, waggle their futuristic fingers at them, issue a veiled threat or two, and, having averted another bit of interference with the timeline, depart.

At which point there's not much left for an episode unless you happen to be Kirk or Janeway. :)

--Flatfingers

[Admiral.of.Starfleet]

Perhaps they do... and then the Timecops show up, waggle their futuristic fingers at them, issue a veiled threat or two, and, having averted another bit of interference with the timeline, depart.

At which point there's not much left for an episode unless you happen to be Kirk or Janeway. :)

--Flatfingers

Maybe Section 31 does, *Admiral.of.Starfleet is dragged away by time travelling Section 31 agents*:eek:

[Richman12]

You forget about alternate universal futures when you say that because the Premonition came back form 1 future altered the past then when't into a different future.

Basic law of time space physic's for each and every action in 1 time line thier is an equal and opisite reaction in another time zone.

Their for certian things that happen in 1 universe do not often happen in another.

Let us say the Rebels defeated Vaders ground forces at Hoth before the shield generator was blown up then anothe universe would be created.

The same theory works in all universes thier for things always happen differently.

[vanlore]

I don't have much time but ill be back.

[vanlore]

Because this is not a debate about time travel. I did not start this thread for it to devolve into the "we can go back in time, n00bz, we winrarz!!" nonsense that you presented with your first post on the matter. The Federation has shown no ability to control its starships' happenstance travels through the temporal dimension, and so it cannot be employed as any kind of reliable weapon. This isn't about who can travel through time better, it's not really fun that way to say, "We have time travel, we win." It's cheating.

You may call it cheating or whatever you like but it exists and is a part of Star Trek. It is what it is. If you disagree with my prior post then that is your opinion however I do not appreciate you mocking me in the slang too insult my intelligence. I understand why you do not want to use UbErZzleeT Pwnzerr Time Travel idea. The reason I brought it up is the fact that the Star Wars Pro will not accept the fact or listen to the points many made that the Federation is technologically superior to the Empire. They would not listen to reason so yes I brought up Time Travel because it would be stupid to argue with that power. Yet even with time travel some Pro Wars fans still say the Federation would loose too the Empire even if they did use time as an advantage.

Ok I will not consider Time Travel as an option for this debate since logic says that the Empire would not be such a dire threat too the Federation so they would have no need too consider the option. But only out of respect for you. This thread is not about what would the Empire/Federation choose too do in a war but rather about mini/max of what each side is capable of. Fed is capable but fine I won't consider it for sake of fun debate.


And in that context, you would still loose, because the Federation does not control time travel. Yes, its ships have traveled through time, and yes, in the far distant future, the Federation will master time travel, but this is not the far-distant-future Federation, and traveling through time and being able to control your travels through time are two very different things. The Federation can do the former, but not the latter.

In context, I have already won here is evidence below. The Federation can do the former and the latter.


Add TOS: Assignment Earth to your list. :D

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_%28episode%29

Not only did they do it by themselves with limited technology but it was also an assigment given by Starfleet command.

The quote from Admiral is all I need to say its possible because it has been done. Weather they would choose to do it or not is not what is in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Time -It was risky when they didn't know if the formula worked but now they know it works as Spock said at the end of the show.. -Spock also points out that since the formula worked, they can go back in time to any planet; any era. This is TOS hence they did this with outdated technology. (by themselves with outdated technology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Is_Yesterday -(by themselves with limited technology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_IV:_The_Voyage_Home -Kirk decides the only way to save Earth and Starfleet is to travel back in time (using the "slingshot effect". (by themselves with outdated technology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine) -They begin to perform calculations and get ready to use the transporters to zero in on the location in time of their lost crewmembers. Kira and O'Brien make several test trips, always ending up in the wrong point in time. Kira and O'Brien finally transport themselves to the correct time in history and contact Dax. This is interesting in the fact that Kira and O'Brien used themselves to find the right time was just a matter of tuning the transporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_Again_(Star_Trek:_Voyager) -The rescue team create a temporal rift. The fact that they can do that as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_Hell -Seven of Nine modify the ship's shields to protect them from the temporal waves- and unknowingly, the temporal changes to the timeline itself. I just thought this was interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_(Star_Trek:_Voyager) -Braxton is captain of the timeship USS Relativity, a ship existing outside space-time; its crew are able to scan time to look for temporal incursions or paradoxes, whereupon they can venture in to prevent the said paradox. Yeah i know there from the future but they seem to spend allot of time in the past.

And you're essentially saying that just because we have seen some Federation ships travel through time, all Federation/Starfleet ships can travel through time at will.

This is a lie or incorrect statement. I am essentially saying that it is possible that the Federation can use Time Travel as a means of dealing with the Empire. It has nothing to do with schematics. It would only take 1 ship... I'm not saying every ship can do that at will but my god I'm sure if the Federation had too out of all the freaking ships they have, more than 1 ship is capable of Time Travel if not many many more. Even outdated ships like Kirk's ship could time travel without any assistance.

Oh, we've seen plenty of time-traveling, the Enterprises, Voyager, the Defiant, they've all been sent through time on many occasions. But, to my knowledge, only twice did they deliberately and controllably do it on their own (and one of those is questionable).

They did more than twice as shown above in this post and those 2 times your talking about are with outdated ships... Again the number of times they chose is irrelevant in the fact that they are able too do it.

Defiant didn't go back in time on their own, they were sent back in time by one of the Bajoran Orbs, one of the devices created by the Wormhole Aliens. They figured out how to use it to get back, yes, but whether it was still useful after that or not was never verified (and knowing the Temporal Integrity Commission, if it was still functional, it would have been confiscated and probably destroyed).

You left out Kirk's file, containing seventeen separate temporal violations


It does not really matter they can use the transporters to time travel also they can use the The slingshot effect, also known as the light-speed breakaway factor effect to time travel or they can use the controlled implosion method. They even have different ways of doing it.


And my rules also include the unacceptability of using time travel as a 'beats-all-no-matter-what' device.

Sorry but in your original post you say nothing of excluding time travel. Ill quote you below in a new post.

[pyriel32]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55YD8QhQ3o

[vanlore]

Ok, you know you all want to see it, the Galactic Empire vs the United Federation of Planets. ISDs tangling with the Enterprise, the Defiant barreling down the Death Star trench, Starfleet tactical fighters mixing it up with Imperial TIE Fighters, all out war. The question is, who would win? Who has the superior technology, firepower, numbers, industrial capacity, tactics and strategies. Well, that's what this tread is all about.

Before we get started, however, there are a few things we need to establish. First and foremost, this will not be a flame war. This will be an intelligent, civil debate and discussion. Heated and aggressive debate is one thing, but direct insults, slander, vitriol, etc. will not be tolerated. This is for fun, not for keeps, and you're under no obligation to adhere with anything presented here within your own personal view of the two universes. For the sake of consistent public discussion and debate, what can be supported and established by evidence, math, applicable laws of physics, etc. will be considered fact (or very strong theory as applicable) within the context of this debate, however, so even if you disagree with something, if it can be proven within this discussion, it has the force of fact within this discussion (you just don't have to follow it outside of this discussion, save any later discussion that acknowledges the contents of this discussion as fact for its purposes, etc.).

Second is the matter of canon. Star Trek and Star Wars both have multiple aspects of canon, including the official 'film only' stance held by both license holders (i.e. if it is on the screen, it's canon, and if it's not on the screen, it's not canon), but both franchises have volumes and volumes of 'non-canon' novels, encyclopedias, technical manuals, ship spotter charts, etc. etc., that are all more or less bound together by their own canon system. Much of the ST vs SW debates have been dedicated to debating whether or not these 'expanded universe' materials should be included with the official canon, and what level of precedence they should be given. Before we can even begin to debate the outcome of a conflict between these two universes, we need to determine exactly which versions of those universes we are committing to our little war.

So, the first order of business for all those interested in participating is what to consider canon for the sake of our debates. Personally, I am in favor of going mostly film-only, with the use of the Star Trek technical manuals and the Star Wars film novelizations as supplemental 'semi-canon' material, that is considered canon or near-canon except when contradicted by the on-screen canon (which is above all). Excluded from the canon, and thereby unacceptable as a valid data source, would be all of the novels and other materials from each universe's 'expanded universe' (to generalize the name of the SW non-film material) besides the Star Trek technical manuals and the SW film novelizations.*

I prefer this definition of 'canon' for the debate, because it most closely matches the nature of the core of both franchises, the shows and movies themselves. Incorporating the expanded universe material from both franchises introduces aspects which invariably drift away from that, and very much change the underlying principles of it all. And it introduces a LOT more factors and super weapons and other complicating matters into both universes (and I'd rather not devolve into an argument about which super technology or super weapon from this novel or that is superior).

So, what say you all? Is this acceptable and shall we have at it as presented, or do you wish to use a different definition of what material is acceptable as canon for the purposes of this debate?



*For the sake of fairness, I would include the SW technical manuals as well, but they have either been written by Curtis Saxxon or heavily influenced by his Incredible Cross Sections series, and Curtis Saxxon is a prominent and active member of the Pro-SW community, and has been implicated in using his position as author of the ICS books to 'pad' the stats of the SW technical specifications in the Pro-SW community's favor (and yes, sadly enough, there are people in the ST vs SW community who have done more than just made it their sole hobby, but have gone to the lengths of using their careers to 'boost the odds', so to speak, in the favor of their chosen side). As such, the Star Wars technical manuals are compromised as a source material, due to the conflict of interest involved in their creation.

Sorry were in here did you exclude specifically time travel?

[bitgolem]

Wow... Just WOW. I can't believe this thread is still going on. Empirical (pardon the pun) clearly shows that Star Wars tech is inferiror to Star Trek tech. End of Story.

[Noonien]

Eh...I wouldn't say inferior altogether. It's just that whenever theres a breakthrough of the scientific or technological kind it's always done by some faceless guy/race and it's never actually delved into except in the occasional star wars fact book or whatever. There's no memory alpha for star wars where you can look up and BAM you know exactly who created the cup you have your earl grey in every morning. Star Trek, if anything, revolves around the progress of the federation, which includes all ground-breaking discoveries of every field, so of course they're gonna seem superior as far as science goes. If you asked me 'which universe has the more scientific genius', star wars or star trek?' I'd say star trek, but that's only because we have no blood-y idea who anyone is in the star wars universe aside from the big guys who run everything and cackle.

Also just for the record, in EU (not entirely canon and personally I hate every single bit of fiction that comes out of it aside from anything relating to Chewbacca) a Jedi (son of Han Solo and Leia...can't remember his name) can travel through time limitlessly by just using the force. No slingshot, no science, just clicking his fingers and he's there, different time, different place. And I don't need to remind everyone here that the Force is the fabric of existance, someone who has become 'one with the force' is literally a Q and has limitless power. So let's keep time travel, Jedi, Sith, Q, and every other DnD epic-level casters out of this. Because I guarantee you that if anyone from either universe tried to go through time and space to stop the other, they'd hit a wall of beings just as powerful as themselves.

Keep it simple. Keep it safe.

[Dr._Sskarno]

Perhaps I am not sticking strickly to the thread but I'd rather PLAY a Trek MMO over SW because the Force/Jedi/Sith thing causes too many balancing issues game-wise.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

You may call it cheating or whatever you like but it exists and is a part of Star Trek. It is what it is. If you disagree with my prior post then that is your opinion however I do not appreciate you mocking me in the slang too insult my intelligence.

It was not my intention to cause offense, and my hurried posting resulted in the impression of a harsher tone than I intended. My intention was to demonstrate how such posts appear, especially with the less careful attention to grammar, spelling, etc. used in those initial posts (which, given the quality of your most recent posts, leads me to suspect that your initial posts were made as quickly as my previous posts).

I've been involved in the ST vs SW debates for several years, mostly on the periphery, and I've seen a LOT of "lawl time travel! pwndjoonoob!" types, and they're just as annoying as the "lawl Death Star! pwndjoonoob!" types. I've rarely seen someone seriously employ the concept with the maturity and intelligence you have demonstrated in your arguments, and that colored my initial responses.


I understand why you do not want to use UbErZzleeT Pwnzerr Time Travel idea. The reason I brought it up is the fact that the Star Wars Pro will not accept the fact or listen to the points many made that the Federation is technologically superior to the Empire. They would not listen to reason so yes I brought up Time Travel because it would be stupid to argue with that power. Yet even with time travel some Pro Wars fans still say the Federation would loose too the Empire even if they did use time as an advantage.

To be honest, this thread has maintained a greater degree of openmindedness than many other threads I've been in (and I'm sure many of the pro-Wars debaters would argue that it is YOU who will not listen to reason } ; = 8 ) ), and I'm still hopeful that reasoned arguments and evidence (the latter of which I haven't had as much time to compile and present as I would like). I know what you mean about debators (both pro-Trek and pro-Wars) refusing to acknowledge reason and stubbornly insisting that they're right based on one scrap of evidence, despite a mountain of contradicting examples and evidence, so I can definitely understand your feelings on the matter.


Ok I will not consider Time Travel as an option for this debate since logic says that the Empire would not be such a dire threat too the Federation so they would have no need too consider the option. But only out of respect for you. This thread is not about what would the Empire/Federation choose too do in a war but rather about mini/max of what each side is capable of. Fed is capable but fine I won't consider it for sake of fun debate.

Thank you. } : = 8 )




In context, I have already won here is evidence below. The Federation can do the former and the latter.

And I conceed the matter to you, since you obviously have done your homework and your evidence can't be refuted.

There are still discrepencies in the behavior towards time travel on many other occasions, though, leaving one to wonder why, if the Federation had reliable (even if risky) means of time travel in the mid-23rd Century, it wasn't relatively common place by the 24th Century, or why round-about ways were used to travel through time (such as in "Trials and Tribble-ations"), when even mid-23rd Century warp drive could send someone through time.




This is a lie or incorrect statement. I am essentially saying that it is possible that the Federation can use Time Travel as a means of dealing with the Empire. It has nothing to do with schematics. It would only take 1 ship... I'm not saying every ship can do that at will but my god I'm sure if the Federation had too out of all the freaking ships they have, more than 1 ship is capable of Time Travel if not many many more. Even outdated ships like Kirk's ship could time travel without any assistance.

An incorrect interpretation of your posts, then (see my comments on "lawl Time Travel" above).

[Admiral.of.Starfleet]

Maybe after Kirk's time, the temporal prime directive was created which limited the use of time travel.
The time the TPD went into effect was never stated.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Temporal_Prime_Directive

[BENIBOY]

star trek is the winneeeeeer

[TheWon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55YD8QhQ3o

Ya Star Trek Wins
On Shatner aka Kirk Power alone! My man just stole the show!