Star Trek vs Star Wars

[Seto.Kaiba]

Thats simple... Star Trek wins.

reasons:
Trek got shields SW not

ST fires with phaers and antimatter weapons, sw got lasers XD

in SW to activate or repair something u have to cross dangerous bridges over bottomless holes... in ST maybe your turbolift got an error :rolleyes:

in SW they got jedi or sith ST got Q

[Catamount]

in SW to activate or repair something u have to cross dangerous bridges over bottomless holes... in ST maybe your turbolift got an error :rolleyes:


You know that is true. I'm not sure how they repair half their systems onboard larger Star Wars ships and stations. Sure, it's great if the system that blows out does so conveniently next to one of those randomly unsafe, narrow passages above the mile deep crevasses we see all over the place, but what if it blows out below or away from such a platform?

[BirdOfPrey]

Sw ships are so much more powerfull, a simple xwing would wipe the whole federation fleet.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

a simple xwing would wipe the whole federation fleet's ass.

Fixed. } ; = 8 P

As for Cat and Seto's point, that is fairly significant. Only on rare occasions do you see such bottomless pits on Trek ships (and they are actually logical bottomless pits: turbolift shafts), and even then, the personnel access/catwalks actually have railings. Trek maintenance, repair and damage control is probably far superior to the Wars capacities.

[Meeber]

How many Federation ships where involved in the Battle of Wolf 359?

[fireraven]

something else I was thinking about the other day was no matter how big the SW galaxy is their is one thing to consider about the Empire. The Empire was prejudicial against non-humans which limited the number of recruits available for the Empire's military. Also the lack of automation required more personnel per ship... ie the turbo laser batteries were operated by two gun crew... so it makes them slower to respond but does make them harder to silence then say taking out the bridge on Trek. So even if the Empire is bigger they don't take advantage of their size very well.

[brewha]

When it comes to Trek vs Wars .... Trek would win hands down. Only say that b/c the ships in Trek are way better. If they could getting jedi into action they would have a shot. But dout they could Trek's ships are to good. Then also don't forget the Q factor LOL.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

How many Federation ships where involved in the Battle of Wolf 359?

39 ships engaged the Cube at Wolf 359. And yes, it was noted that it would take a year to recover from those losses. However, that was a single incidence, in which the Federation drastically underestimated their opponent, and later episodes of DS9 show that the Federation could field many, many times that number of ships with relative ease, with a total force somewhere between a few thousand and a couple tens of thousands of starships, on multiple occasions. So, we are faced with the one-off instance for which there can be many explanations (it was never actually stated WHY it would take a year to recover from those losses, after all), against numerous instances which make it very clear that the Federation had to have had a rather large fleet.


Also, fireraven, you have a good point. Bigger ships with more people on it aren't always a good thing. Size and numbers alone aren't the only factors to consider, and can sometimes be among the least influencial factors.

Also, your point about manually-operated gun turrets is very important. We're talking large, slow-pivoting turrets controlled and aimed by human beings. Even enhanced human beings, with computerized target assistance, wouldn't be able to hit a ship traveling at significant velocities of c with such a gun. The reaction and response times necessary are simply far beyond anything a human being would be capable of, especially at close range, and the precision required for acuracy at anything beyond a few kilometers would be beyond the physical capacity of the human body. Wars gunners simply wouldn't be able to hit Trek ships unless the Trek captain decided to effectively stop and hold still for them, or they got very lucky.

And if SW had that kind of automation, why have their gun turrets manned at all?

[osena]

are there limiteed number of star ships of each class am just asking i know full well there were only 2 sovereign class star ships the U.S.S Sovereign and the U.S.S Enterprise so cannon wise how would that reflict on us player owning and captaining Sovereign class star ships?

[osena]

when it comes to the empire vs the starfleet i belive the empire would outnumber them by a larger margen empire dos not send out a singal ship at one time there sent out small folitilas of a sort 4 two 5 ships when it comes to the flag ships like Darth vaders ship the exodar or exodur it is excorted by 6 to 8 star destroys.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

The only limit on starship class construction that we know of is that, as of the mid/late-2360s, there were 13 Constitution class starships in service, and that as of 2374, the Prometheus had just the prototype ship. We have no other data on how many ships of each class were built. We don't even know how many Sovereigns were built as of 2373, though, given that they were supposedly designed to replace the Excelsior, according to the ship's designers and producers, they would likely be produced in large numbers. There's no real limit on the number of ships of any one class that were constructed at any given time, save a handful of instances like Kirk's remark that there were "twelve like [the Enterprise]" in TOS, and the fact that the Prometheus was an experimental ship. We know there were at least two Sovereigns built as of 2373, at least 15 Galaxies built as of 2374 (15 Galaxies appear in a single scene in "Sacrifice of Angels"), and at least 4 or 5 Defiant class starships were built as of 2374. There's more info we have on minimum numbers, be we don't really have any data on maximum numbers.

[osena]

say U.S.S Enterprise E vs Darth vaders ship Executor not only is the Enteprise going to have to fight Exector the the Tie figters come out of the Executors hanger bays Enterprise shilds might hold up for couple or minuets but she would be destroyed sooner then latter and each one of the star destorys have hanger bays you not just fighting it you all so fighting the TIE fighters Tie bombers Tie opressers its loseing fighting for starfleet

[osena]

The only limit on starship class construction that we know of is that, as of the mid/late-2360s, there were 13 Constitution class starships in service, and that as of 2374, the Prometheus had just the prototype ship. We have no other data on how many ships of each class were built. We don't even know how many Sovereigns were built as of 2373, though, given that they were supposedly designed to replace the Excelsior, according to the ship's designers and producers, they would likely be produced in large numbers. There's no real limit on the number of ships of any one class that were constructed at any given time, save a handful of instances like Kirk's remark that there were "twelve like [the Enterprise]" in TOS, and the fact that the Prometheus was an experimental ship. We know there were at least two Sovereigns built as of 2373, at least 15 Galaxies built as of 2374 (15 Galaxies appear in a single scene in "Sacrifice of Angels"), and at least 4 or 5 Defiant class starships were built as of 2374. There's more info we have on minimum numbers, be we don't really have any data on maximum numbers.

so there is not hard deta on the numbers thanx

[Ilithi_Dragon]

say U.S.S Enterprise E vs Darth vaders ship Executor not only is the Enteprise going to have to fight Exector the the Tie figters come out of the Executors hanger bays Enterprise shilds might hold up for couple or minuets but she would be destroyed sooner then latter and each one of the star destorys have hanger bays you not just fighting it you all so fighting the TIE fighters Tie bombers Tie opressers its loseing fighting for starfleet

This assumes that SW weaponry is relatively comparable or superior to ST weaponry, and that Imperial ships and fighters could not only get close enough to fire at a Fed ship, but actually hit it, as well. The comparability of Trek and Wars weapons firepower is still being debated, but the general superiority of Trek speed (at sublight, and when engaging in combat), agility, and weapons accuracy and range cannot be refuted. Trek ships can move much, much faster, accelerate much, much faster, turn much harder at much faster speeds, and fire accurately and effectively from many orders of magnitude beyond the demonstrated effective range of Wars weaponry. It also forgets the massive 'porcupine' blasts that Trek phaser arrays have demonstrated themselves capable of. WIth weapons capable of accurately hitting targets on the order of 200,000 kilometers away, a newer Fed ship (i.e. designed some 40 years or so fromt he start of TNG, or sooner) would be able to decimate incoming waves of fighters (especially the apparently un-shielded or minimally-shielded TIE Fighters) long before they could ever come into attack range. Further, a Trek ship could simply OUT RUN the fighters, even at sublight. If that didn't suite the captain, straffing the massed fighters at warp, even low warp, would be devastating. So would detonating 100-1000+ megaton photon torpedoes in the middle of fighter wing formations.

Trek ships can also certainly out-run Wars ships in an engagement, either at sublight, or by jumping to warp. Again, the generally limited range and accuracy of Wars weaponry would make it effectively impossible for Wars ships to hit a Trek ship traveling at full impulse, let alone warp speed. A Trek ship would also be able to simply sit back beyond the Wars ships' weapons range and hammer them with precision fire from afar.

Wars ships might have a FTL speed and firepower advantage (I haven't yet gotten the chance to properly research any changes in the SW canon policy with the addition of the new CGI/live-action material, nor what effect the new data has on SW weapons and FTL speed estimates), but in actual combat, they have major disadvantages in every other aspect, save size (which in and of itself means nothing).

so there is not hard deta on the numbers thanx

Not on the actual or maximum number of ships per each design, no, just the minimum number of ships per design, with a couple exceptions.

[fireraven]

are there limiteed number of star ships of each class am just asking i know full well there were only 2 sovereign class star ships the U.S.S Sovereign and the U.S.S Enterprise so cannon wise how would that reflict on us player owning and captaining Sovereign class star ships?
for the game who knows.... but I imagine for the Trek universe it's just like R/L where they only plan on building a certain number of vessels per class. After that it's probably time to get the next class out
would make it very interesting if only allowed a certain number of vessels per class based off the number of players ... ex 1 Sovereign per 10 players....

[Ilithi_Dragon]

for the game who knows.... but I imagine for the Trek universe it's just like R/L where they only plan on building a certain number of vessels per class. After that it's probably time to get the next class out
would make it very interesting if only allowed a certain number of vessels per class based off the number of players ... ex 1 Sovereign per 10 players....

I would imagine that you're fairly right, though I don't think Starfleet decides the total number of ships of that class that they're going to build with the first order. They would probably periodically order ships of each class for the duration of their production life (not to be confused with their operational life), with each order consisting of one or more production runs, depending on the number of ships ordered, the availability of shipyards and resources, and the level of need for the new ships.

[osena]

I would imagine that you're fairly right, though I don't think Starfleet decides the total number of ships of that class that they're going to build with the first order. They would probably periodically order ships of each class for the duration of their production life (not to be confused with their operational life), with each order consisting of one or more production runs, depending on the number of ships ordered, the availability of shipyards and resources, and the level of need for the new ships.

cos i belive players engineering in genreal would be the ones building these star ships it would be up to the players of there said fleet how many are build for there fleet

[osena]

This assumes that SW weaponry is relatively comparable or superior to ST weaponry, and that Imperial ships and fighters could not only get close enough to fire at a Fed ship, but actually hit it, as well. The comparability of Trek and Wars weapons firepower is still being debated, but the general superiority of Trek speed (at sublight, and when engaging in combat), agility, and weapons accuracy and range cannot be refuted. Trek ships can move much, much faster, accelerate much, much faster, turn much harder at much faster speeds, and fire accurately and effectively from many orders of magnitude beyond the demonstrated effective range of Wars weaponry. It also forgets the massive 'porcupine' blasts that Trek phaser arrays have demonstrated themselves capable of. WIth weapons capable of accurately hitting targets on the order of 200,000 kilometers away, a newer Fed ship (i.e. designed some 40 years or so fromt he start of TNG, or sooner) would be able to decimate incoming waves of fighters (especially the apparently un-shielded or minimally-shielded TIE Fighters) long before they could ever come into attack range. Further, a Trek ship could simply OUT RUN the fighters, even at sublight. If that didn't suite the captain, straffing the massed fighters at warp, even low warp, would be devastating. So would detonating 100-1000+ megaton photon torpedoes in the middle of fighter wing formations.

Trek ships can also certainly out-run Wars ships in an engagement, either at sublight, or by jumping to warp. Again, the generally limited range and accuracy of Wars weaponry would make it effectively impossible for Wars ships to hit a Trek ship traveling at full impulse, let alone warp speed. A Trek ship would also be able to simply sit back beyond the Wars ships' weapons range and hammer them with precision fire from afar.

Wars ships might have a FTL speed and firepower advantage (I haven't yet gotten the chance to properly research any changes in the SW canon policy with the addition of the new CGI/live-action material, nor what effect the new data has on SW weapons and FTL speed estimates), but in actual combat, they have major disadvantages in every other aspect, save size (which in and of itself means nothing).



Not on the actual or maximum number of ships per each design, no, just the minimum number of ships per design, with a couple exceptions.

have you forgot star wars has hyperdrive capabiltys and as for the Enterprise outruning tie fighters and the like i don't think its possibel as the would not only be bombarted by the ties but all so Executor executor carrys a number of those tie advanced models and there real fast

[Captain_Pete]

I dont have that much physics knowledge to be honest phasers, laser, distruptors, shield, torpedos both Trek and Wars have their own so its all the same for me! I would say they are pretty equal on space.

Fighting "Mano-a-mano" would go clearly for Wars. No mather what weapons a jedi/sith would just use force to choke, lightning, break neck, make the weapon holder shoot himself on the head or his friends or what ever to win the fight in mere seconds.

Seems a bit silly to fight over some technical stuff to be honest :D

[osena]

for the game who knows.... but I imagine for the Trek universe it's just like R/L where they only plan on building a certain number of vessels per class. After that it's probably time to get the next class out
would make it very interesting if only allowed a certain number of vessels per class based off the number of players ... ex 1 Sovereign per 10 players....

frist off if there is never a chance form the to command the ship of there dreams you lost half the fan base

2ed why should only a select few be abile to command a high and star ship why some are forced to used a 2ed rate star ship it makes no sense in terms of pvp there all alot that want to colllect all the ships in star trek online like my self

[osena]

I dont have that much physics knowledge to be honest phasers, laser, distruptors, shield, torpedos both Trek and Wars have their own so its all the same for me! I would say they are pretty equal on space.

Fighting "Mano-a-mano" would go clearly for Wars. No mather what weapons a jedi/sith would just use force to choke, lightning, break neck, make the weapon holder shoot himself on the head or his friends or what ever to win the fight in mere seconds.

Seems a bit silly to fight over some technical stuff to be honest :D

but star wars and star trek i enjoy them both

[Seto.Kaiba]

say U.S.S Enterprise E vs Darth vaders ship Executor not only is the Enteprise going to have to fight Exector the the Tie figters come out of the Executors hanger bays Enterprise shilds might hold up for couple or minuets but she would be destroyed sooner then latter and each one of the star destorys have hanger bays you not just fighting it you all so fighting the TIE fighters Tie bombers Tie opressers its loseing fighting for starfleet

Wrong before the Stardestroyers opened their hangars they get blow to ashes by multiple torpedo impacts

[osena]

Wrong before the Stardestroyers opened their hangars they get blow to ashes by multiple torpedo impacts

star destroyers travel in packs your enterprise might get one get one hanger bay but star destroyers have up too 4 hanger bays

[starshipcaptain]

how about stargate bs startrek

[Ilithi_Dragon]

have you forgot star wars has hyperdrive capabiltys and as for the Enterprise outruning tie fighters and the like i don't think its possibel as the would not only be bombarted by the ties but all so Executor executor carrys a number of those tie advanced models and there real fast

I'm not talking about flying at FTL - Wars ships have not demonstrated any capacity to fight at FTL speeds. As far as we know, they're limited to strictly sublight speeds in combat. Trek ships, on the other hand, can fight at sublight and FTL, including making attacks against sublight targets.

That aside, though, Trek has demonstrated vastly superior sublight acceleration and maneuverability. At best, Wars ships have demonstrated maybe 30 g's of acceleration - 250 - 300 m/s^2, or ~25-30 times the acceleration of 1 Earth Gravity, or 25 - 30 g's (that's the Millenium Falcon accelerating with the 'afterburner' effect). Trek ships routinely demonstrate accelerations on the order of several thousand to tens of thousands of meters per second per second, or 400 - 2000 g's. There's simply no way that a Wars ship could keep up with a Trek ship.

Further, Wars weapons range is horrendous, with ships being 'out of weapons range' as close as a few kilometers (at most) on some occasions. Wars weapons have missed kilometer+ capital ships only a couple kilometers away, and Wars ship combat routinely involves ships pulling up alongside each other, barely a couple hundred meters away, and exchanging broadsides (such limited range could actually make sense, if Wars weaponry uses a 'bolt' of super-heated plasma encased in a projected electromagnetic pulse 'bottle' of some sort, which would also fit with the 'flak burst' effects we've seen, as well as the decidedly slower-than-light travel velocities, the cannon 'shells' seen in Episode III, and the decidedly limited acceleration and maneuvering capabilities of Wars ships).

Trek weapons, on the other hand, have routinely demonstrated effective and precision targeting at ranges of a couple hundred meters to a couple hundred thousand kilometers for phasers, and millions to billions of kilometers for torpedoes. Unless a Wars ship dropped out of hyper right on top of a Trek ship that was in park and immediately opened fire, it would never be able to get close enough to fire, let alone hit anything. The fighters are even worse off, since most of the TIE fighters don't appear to have hyperdrive.

I dont have that much physics knowledge to be honest phasers, laser, distruptors, shield, torpedos both Trek and Wars have their own so its all the same for me! I would say they are pretty equal on space.

Fighting "Mano-a-mano" would go clearly for Wars. No mather what weapons a jedi/sith would just use force to choke, lightning, break neck, make the weapon holder shoot himself on the head or his friends or what ever to win the fight in mere seconds.

Seems a bit silly to fight over some technical stuff to be honest :D

Well, the fact that examining the technical stuff reveals all sorts of inequalities in technology and capacity, we find it to be very fun and enjoyable, whether or not it accomplishes anything.


star destroyers travel in packs your enterprise might get one get one hanger bay but star destroyers have up too 4 hanger bays

He was talking about blowing the whole ship with a few torpedoes, not shots to the hangar bay. Whether or not photon torpedoes would have that large of an effect is still being debated, but they definitely could strike from well beyond the range of any SW weapon.

[Seto.Kaiba]

star destroyers travel in packs your enterprise might get one get one hanger bay but star destroyers have up too 4 hanger bays

its not possible how many hangars a star destroyer got.... one quantum torpedo kills the whole ship... include 1 hangars 3 hangars or 20 000 hangars....

and the sovereign class is able to fire 10 quantum torpedos on alpha strike and during the fight 1 torp /second

so how many star destroyers can u bring?

[Ilithi_Dragon]

its not possible how many hangars a star destroyer got.... one quantum torpedo kills the whole ship... include 1 hangars 3 hangars or 20 000 hangars....

and the sovereign class is able to fire 10 quantum torpedos on alpha strike and during the fight 1 torp /second

so how many star destroyers can u bring?

Actually, it's probably only 6 quantums in a full volley, not ten (plus 24 - 27 photon torpedoes), and it's not certain whether or not a single Quantum torpedo will obliterate a Star Destroyer, but you still have a point - Trek ships can hammer Wars ships with heavy volleys of torpedo fire from millions of times the range of Wars weapons.

[Meeber]

Well I have solved the mystery of who wins between the Federation and the Empire.
I have Galactic Civ II and I have the Federation and the Empire on it. I played on a Large map with just those two playing and the Federation won. Am glad that I was able to bring this question to a close:)

[Meeber]

Actually, it's probably only 6 quantums in a full volley, not ten (plus 24 - 27 photon torpedoes), and it's not certain whether or not a single Quantum torpedo will obliterate a Star Destroyer, but you still have a point - Trek ships can hammer Wars ships with heavy volleys of torpedo fire from millions of times the range of Wars weapons.

Star Destroyer have shields to. So they may offer some protection against torpeados. Problem is we don't really know how strong they are.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Star Destroyer have shields to. So they may offer some protection against torpeados. Problem is we don't really know how strong they are.

Exactly. We can make some rough estimates, though, and while it won't give us exactly how many torpedoes the SD shields can withstand, it can give us an idea of how the two genres' firepower compares, allowing us to make further determinations based on how closely the compare (or how dispraportionate their respective firepowers are).

[djnattyd]

Star Destroyer have shields to. So they may offer some protection against torpeados. Problem is we don't really know how strong they are.

Yeah but a Star Destroyers shield emmiters are located on top of the bridge section so there exposed to direct fire instanly, whereas a ship from Star Trek has it's emmiters housed in the hull beneath a layer of armor and all that is surrounded by a shield

[fireraven]

frist off if there is never a chance form the to command the ship of there dreams you lost half the fan base

2ed why should only a select few be abile to command a high and star ship why some are forced to used a 2ed rate star ship it makes no sense in terms of pvp there all alot that want to colllect all the ships in star trek online like my self
how is there never the chance? not everyone feels the need to have the "best" ship... but it will make pvp much more interesting if not everyone is flying the "top of the line" ship into battle would make tactics more important then just banging away at each other

[Traveller]

Star Destroyer have shields to. So they may offer some protection against torpeados. Problem is we don't really know how strong they are.

Yes Star Destroyers have shields but going by movie footage the only thing tht had trouble going through them was the figters lasers. The Mon Calamiri cruisers seem to be able to dmg them the only problem they had was tht they were outnumberd big time and takeing for from the Death Star.

[osena]

how is there never the chance? not everyone feels the need to have the "best" ship... but it will make pvp much more interesting if not everyone is flying the "top of the line" ship into battle would make tactics more important then just banging away at each other

form were i stand if i put in the time riseing form tear 1 to tear 4 i feel it is my right to have the chance to command the ship of my choice

[osena]

Yes Star Destroyers have shields but going by movie footage the only thing tht had trouble going through them was the figters lasers. The Mon Calamiri cruisers seem to be able to dmg them the only problem they had was tht they were outnumberd big time and takeing for from the Death Star.

the min calamiri would not have to get past there own shiled emiters as most of the mon calamiri were enslaved and forced to build the empires fleet so it would make sense for them being abel to by pass there own tech

[vp21ct]

I have some Ideas on how to compare the firepower and the strength of each group.

I think we should try and figure out where each factions (Empire/Federation) firepower and deployabl number of crew rates in comparison to our own capabilities (using the United States, without doubt the most powerful nation on earth [firepower wise] as a base measure) by orders of magnitude. for example, a Single star destroyer has a weapons rating of 1.0 (1X the full destructive power of the united states) and has a crew of 15,000 with the empire having a personnel force of 6000 (6000X the number of personnel the US has active).

That would give us a good level on that. weapon accuracy can be rated by conventional meens (at a guess, I would say the Empires average is arround 61% accuracy, with the federation at 89% accuracy)

FTL should be measured in Xc (as it always is). The stealth factor of that FTL is just a simple yes/no, and reliability would be a scale of 1-5 (Hyperdrive is a 2, warp drive is a 4.5)

Nonhuman resources should be measured in planets and war time productivity should be meassured in X that of the US during world war 2 (arguably the most productive time for any natio ever, and we can change it depending on what we all find suitable.)

(all numbers used are guestimations or examples)

Well, tell me what you think of those variables, and please don't burry this post.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I like your ideas, VP, though I think we can just use base scientific terms for weapons firepower and range, and maybe accuracy (though that could be hard to find an effective measuring system). For example, both Trek and Wars have a few asteroid-popping scenes, and other instances in which firepower can be measured against real-world values, which would give us the ability to get the general range of energy outputs for each faction. Doesn't really matter whether we measure the yields in Jules and Watts or times the destructive power of the U.S., the ratios would still be the same, and we wouldn't have to worry about confusion or ambiguity over the destructive power of the U.S.

[vp21ct]

I bassed my desicion on the fact that the US has a powerful enough nuclear arsenal to destroy all life on earth in roughly 24 hours. The ISD is supposed to be able to do the same thing.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I bassed my desicion on the fact that the US has a powerful enough nuclear arsenal to destroy all life on earth in roughly 24 hours. The ISD is supposed to be able to do the same thing.

Interesting.

I did some quick math, based on arsenal reduction called for by 2012 in the 2002 SORT treaty, and got a total U.S. nuclear arsenal yield of some 718.5 megatons (assuming all the variable-yield bombs went off at maximum yield). That's about 1/5th the number of bombs we had as of 2002, so multiplying that by 5 should give us a rough idea of the nuclear arsenal size (quick search didn't give me any figures on current arsenal firepower). So, assuming the U.S. nuclear arsenal has some 3600 megatons, that's either 3.6 to 36 photon torpedoes, depending on whether the low-end estimate of a 100 megaton yield G2K of ST-v-SW.net uses, or my own higher estimate of a 1000 megaton yield is used. So, .18 to 2.75 volleys from the Galaxy class.

[DrJackWolfe]

Star Destroyer matter shield are signifcant enough to take hours worth of hits in a very aggressive asteroid field. So are fed shields, still....

Trek weapons ranges, 'specally from Kirks' time, are quoted in the hundreds of thousand click range.

The federation fielded over 600 ships to retake DS9, while maintain a semblance of preasure on other fronts AND maintaining the home fleet. Clearly some were very old and very uprated, but it's not unreasonable to think they could field 2000 to 3000.

DS9 aslo used wide beam phaser to hunt shape shifters.

[vp21ct]

Interesting.

I did some quick math, based on arsenal reduction called for by 2012 in the 2002 SORT treaty, and got a total U.S. nuclear arsenal yield of some 718.5 megatons (assuming all the variable-yield bombs went off at maximum yield). That's about 1/5th the number of bombs we had as of 2002, so multiplying that by 5 should give us a rough idea of the nuclear arsenal size (quick search didn't give me any figures on current arsenal firepower). So, assuming the U.S. nuclear arsenal has some 3600 megatons, that's either 3.6 to 36 photon torpedoes, depending on whether the low-end estimate of a 100 megaton yield G2K of ST-v-SW.net uses, or my own higher estimate of a 1000 megaton yield is used. So, .18 to 2.75 volleys from the Galaxy class.

Interesting. In theory that does provide some really hella power out puts for the Galaxy, to say nothing of newer ships. Though it must be noted that it is unlikely that the Galaxy (or other ships) could anialate all life on earth in a handful of shots, there wouldn't be enough of a spread of damage.

But for our purposes, that does put the Feds in a nice position on the damage level. Though I would go for a more conservative estimate of around 300-500 megatons or so. I would like to know how you came up with your estimate though.

Question: is there any signifigant variation in photon-torps (for each class).

[starshipcaptain]

If The Federation Wanted To They Could Buld A Huge Warship. With Muliply Phasers And Torpedoes.

When Does Star Wars Win

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Interesting. In theory that does provide some really hella power out puts for the Galaxy, to say nothing of newer ships. Though it must be noted that it is unlikely that the Galaxy (or other ships) could anialate all life on earth in a handful of shots, there wouldn't be enough of a spread of damage.

Actually, the Galaxy is the most powerful ship in the fleet, between 2363 and 2379 (Nemesis), anyway (barring the launch of a brand-new capital ship in her size range, that we haven't seen). As for annihilating all life on Earth... Doubtful in a handful of shots, but you need some hellacious firepower, or the ability to spread it everywhere very quickly, in order to do that, and no ship from either genre is so equipped (death star doesn't count, 'cause it blows the planet up).



But for our purposes, that does put the Feds in a nice position on the damage level. Though I would go for a more conservative estimate of around 300-500 megatons or so. I would like to know how you came up with your estimate though.

Darkstar/G2K deliberately went with a conservative estimate ("Extreme but fair low-end estimate in his own words) for his photon torpedo figure, and if you look through his math, and understand that explosions against asteroids (especially nuclear and anti-matter, which are just straight releases of energy, of varying efficiency) are not 'blenders in space', the yield of the torpedoes used in VOY "Rise" could very easily be much larger (we're talking a huge hunk of rock, and it was supposed to be reduced to nothing bigger than a centimeter - 100 megatons IS an extreme low estimate). Then there's TNG "Skin of Evil" where the explosion we see from orbit when the Enterprise fires a torpedo to destroy the crashed shuttle could easily be in the multi-gigaton range. Further, in "The Die is Cast", just a few seconds orbital bombardment from only 20 ships (half of them being Cardassian capital ships, which would compare to a heavy cruiser from the top three) yields explosions well into the multi-gigaton range, including one compound fireball the size of western Europe, and was enough to destroy an entire third of the planet's crust. My figure isn't precisely calculated, but pegged as a nice, even figure roughly in the middle of G2K's extreme low-end estimate, and the higher, multi-gigaton estimates that could easily be derived.


Question: is there any signifigant variation in photon-torps (for each class).

Only between time periods. Photon torpedo ordnance would be pretty standardized. There might be a short delay between the initial deployment of, say, the Type-XXVI torpedo before the Type-XXV torpedo has been completely replaced throughout the fleet (with ships on extreme deep-space exploration missions possibly lagging a couple years behind), but for the most part, they'd be fairly standard (at least, that's the implication we are given).

[BirdOfPrey]

YOU ARE ALL WRONG!

The final battle would be Q Vs Darth Bane. :p



More seriously :
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png

[Ilithi_Dragon]

More seriously :
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png

Yeah, that's been posted numerous times. I find it amusing and ironic that Star Wars fans, of all people, would make size their primary argument of strength. As Yoda said, "Size matters not!"

[Meeber]

Yes Star Destroyers have shields but going by movie footage the only thing tht had trouble going through them was the figters lasers. The Mon Calamiri cruisers seem to be able to dmg them the only problem they had was tht they were outnumberd big time and takeing for from the Death Star.


Ok so do you thing the Star Wars shielding was along the same lines ad the Hull plate sheilding of the Enterprise in the show Enterprise with Archer has the captain?

[BirdOfPrey]

Yeah, that's been posted numerous times. I find it amusing and ironic that Star Wars fans, of all people, would make size their primary argument of strength. As Yoda said, "Size matters not!"

You'r right Yoda would wipe the floor with Q. :D

[Meeber]

I bassed my desicion on the fact that the US has a powerful enough nuclear arsenal to destroy all life on earth in roughly 24 hours. The ISD is supposed to be able to do the same thing.

Actully it doesn't. In fact if you take the destructive power of all the nukes courrently made on earth they would still not have the power to destroyt all life on earth. Mankind (at least Earthlings) have not developed the technology yet to harnest that much fire power. Now don't get me wrong the nukes would be destructive and make life in those areas harsh. The destructive power of one large volcano dwarfs anything we can do with nukes.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Actully it doesn't. In fact if you take the destructive power of all the nukes courrently made on earth they would still not have the power to destroyt all life on earth. Mankind (at least Earthlings) have not developed the technology yet to harnest that much fire power. Now don't get me wrong the nukes would be destructive and make life in those areas harsh. The destructive power of one large volcano dwarfs anything we can do with nukes.

This is true. Taking all the nukes ever produced in the world, you'd get something around several gigatons worth of energy, which would be on the order of the 1883 eruption of Krakatau (est. 5,230 megatons). By comparison, the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora that caused the Year WIthout a Summer, and obliterated 2/3s of the island it was on, is estimated at some 24,500 megatons. The eruption that formed the Yellowstone caldera is estimated at some 875,000 megatons (875 gigatons), and the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago is estimated at some 100 million megatons, or 100 teratons (100 trilion tons of TNT).

However, the actual qualitative effects of those eruptions and explosions is quite another story, as the actual destructive effect depends very much on the energy release over time - most volcanic eruptions take place over a period of days, with the main eruption event often lasting hours, with multiple major eruptions, instead of releasing all the energy in a single instant. Further, the deployment of that energy and destructive effect is another issue, since even a 100 million megaton blast would not kill off creatures inhabiting the opposite side of the planet for several days, or even weeks. Dispersed across the planet, though, a much higher short-term death rate could be achieved by a much-lower blast yield.

[DrJackWolfe]

"The Die is Cast" I think. A romulan/cardassian fleet of 20 ships vaporized <vaporized> a third of a planet's crust with one volley. There is no reason to suspect fed ships any less capable. While the 275 torpeodo load-out of a Galaxy class may not "kill" all live on a planet, it would sure do a hell of a job, 'specally if a gigaton yeild is what we end up with (ten times the largest weapon ever tested on earth). Detonating a real photon torpedo in atmosphere would be catastrophic. All that nice radation that quickly a quietly disapates in space would have matter irradiate. Atmospheric effects would be in full force, amplfiing the shock waves. Teratons of dirt in thrown into the sky. Then there are the Phasers disurpting matter at a subatomic level.(what happens when you release the strong gravity forces in an ocean?) I'm not sure it could be done quickly, but a Galaxy (much like a Connie) could peel a planet. Even a high tech planet that could protect its people wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of such a barrage.

That seems to be what today's writers (and most TV writers) forget, the terrifying power that a singel starship demonstrates.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

"The Die is Cast" I think. A romulan/cardassian fleet of 20 ships vaporized <vaporized> a third of a planet's crust with one volley. There is no reason to suspect fed ships any less capable.

Yes. We know for a fact that ten of those ships (the D'Deridexi) are equitable to the Galaxy, and we also know that the Cardassians are an under-teched minor power compared to the Big Three, so their Keldon class battleships wouldn't be able to match the capital ships of the Big Three. Yet a third of the planet's crust was 'destroyed' (that was the actual word used, not vaporized, which could mean vaporized, or something else) in a matter of seconds, with massive, multi-gigaton-range fireballs peppering the surface, including one compoud fireball (coming from multiple weapons strikes) that would have covered the most of Europe. Had that struck Earth, everything from Portugal to the Carpathians, and from Sicily to Norway would have been literally wiped off the map in an instant. An explosion of that magnitude would probably level the Alps.


While the 275 torpeodo load-out of a Galaxy class may not "kill" all live on a planet, it would sure do a hell of a job, 'specally if a gigaton yeild is what we end up with (ten times the largest weapon ever tested on earth). Detonating a real photon torpedo in atmosphere would be catastrophic. All that nice radation that quickly a quietly disapates in space would have matter irradiate. Atmospheric effects would be in full force, amplfiing the shock waves. Teratons of dirt in thrown into the sky. Then there are the Phasers disurpting matter at a subatomic level.(what happens when you release the strong gravity forces in an ocean?) I'm not sure it could be done quickly, but a Galaxy (much like a Connie) could peel a planet. Even a high tech planet that could protect its people wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of such a barrage.

THe destructive effects of a 100 to 1000-megaton blast within an atmosphere could be mitigated by the torpedo itself, depending on the circumstances and the torpedo's targeting profile/detonation configuration. Trek torpedoes are shielded, and there is pretty strong evidence that they use those shields (and possibly other short-lived field generators) to create a short-lived bubble around the explosion itself, confining and 'shaping' the explosive energy, and maximizing its destructive force per area/volume. This would allow for precision torpedo strikes within an atmosphere against modern defenses, without causing massive-scale destruction.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Oh, VP, before I forget again, those SW tech manuals you were talking about using, which were they? There've been a few different ones, if I recall correctly, and I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

[starshipcaptain]

star trek wins in cloaked ships. star wars don have cloaks. so you could sneak up on a SW ship and destroy them befor they knew what hit them

[Ilithi_Dragon]

A comment from an Imperial officer in ESB makes it clear that the Empire has some form of cloaking technology (ref. the vanished Falcon: "No ship that small has a cloak!"). The nature and effectiveness of the SW cloaking technology remains unknown, though we know that it is either too large to mount on a ship the size of the Millenium Falcon, or requires far more power than a ship the size of the Falcon could generate. Also, given that SW sensors seem to be rather poor, at least compared to Trek sensors (I'm sure they'd be pretty cool toys compared to modern military technology), it's entirely possible that Trek sensors may well be able to detect cloaked Wars ships.

[fireraven]

well since they seem unable to track ships through hyperspace without the benefit of some type of tracking device and their sensors for ships seem to be fairly limited.... have to give the edge to Trek there.
In ROJ the Rebellion was unable to notice the Empires fleet til they almost ran into them and it seemed fairly easy for the Empire to jam their signals

[vp21ct]

I think that my library has first edition Increadable cross sections. After that, I tried really hard to draw up crew complements bassed on comparative size and what we saw in the movies (i did that for the mon cals). Finally, I checked notes with the EU reference books.

As for all the 'Nukes can't wipe out all life'. I know that there may not be enough Megatons to perform an operation base-delta-zero but considering that we could set up the nukes in a pattern that distributed the damage as much as it could, we could destroy enough that the repurcutions of it would do one hell of finishing the job.

Figure of speach anyway :p

[SelorKiith]

As for Base Delta Zero... there is opposed the Federations General Order 24 ;)

[starshipcaptain]

If The Clone Army Got To Earth They Woudl Be Hard To Get Rid Of . Even With Wide Spraw

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I think that my library has first edition Increadable cross sections. After that, I tried really hard to draw up crew complements bassed on comparative size and what we saw in the movies (i did that for the mon cals). Finally, I checked notes with the EU reference books.

Ah, the ICS books... The same books that list a light 'AA' turbolaser gun on a troop transport as having a 200-gigaton yield, per shot. Curtis Saxton, one of their main authors, is a close friend of Mike Wong, and has been active with the SDN crowd of the ST vs SW debates for several years now (though he's been careful to remain behind the scenes). They are most certainly NOT unbiased material, and there is evidence that the the author conspired with various 'major players' in the pro-Wars vs crowd to use the ICS (especially the E2ICS) to make Wars firepower better than Trek firepower. See here (http://www.st-v-sw.net/Warsiegroup.html) and here (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWICS.html).

[vp21ct]

Like I said, I used alot of different sources and mixed it all up.

[starshipcaptain]

i agree that warp drive may be less powerful but at least ou dont have to calculate before jumping to warp

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Like I said, I used alot of different sources and mixed it all up.

Never said it was your only source, just that that source isn't reliable, and is probably heavily biased.

[DrJackWolfe]

Yes. We know for a fact that ten of those ships (the D'Deridexi) are equitable to the Galaxy, and we also know that the Cardassians are an under-teched minor power compared to the Big Three, so their Keldon class battleships wouldn't be able to match the capital ships of the Big Three. Yet a third of the planet's crust was 'destroyed' (that was the actual word used, not vaporized, which could mean vaporized, or something else) in a matter of seconds, with massive, multi-gigaton-range fireballs peppering the surface, including one compoud fireball (coming from multiple weapons strikes) that would have covered the most of Europe. Had that struck Earth, everything from Portugal to the Carpathians, and from Sicily to Norway would have been literally wiped off the map in an instant. An explosion of that magnitude would probably level the Alps.




THe destructive effects of a 100 to 1000-megaton blast within an atmosphere could be mitigated by the torpedo itself, depending on the circumstances and the torpedo's targeting profile/detonation configuration. Trek torpedoes are shielded, and there is pretty strong evidence that they use those shields (and possibly other short-lived field generators) to create a short-lived bubble around the explosion itself, confining and 'shaping' the explosive energy, and maximizing its destructive force per area/volume. This would allow for precision torpedo strikes within an atmosphere against modern defenses, without causing massive-scale destruction.

Oh, I agree, they use something to shape the charge of a torp, but that makes it even more terrifying in my book. Want to kill a planet? Ok Phaser a hole a couple KM deep (Shown in the episode with Yar's sister) then lob Gigaton shaped charges at the mantle or the core till something breaks. Want to scare a populace into surrender, here have a torp at maximum load out with maximum environmental damage...enjoy the gamma rays.:eek: How about we punch a couple holes through the relatively thin crust over your oceans exposing all that nice hot magma. Will the semi-liquid rock cool before the ocean evaporates? Scary...really scary and that's not even the good stuff. They detonate stars in this universe, and not just Saruon in Generations. You don't think they kept the readings when the guy from MASH "accidentally" caused a nova when he was experimenting with regenerating his star ((Eww he slept with Troi's mom)?

[vp21ct]

Thats called the Mirror universe my friend. In my book, I have no doubt who would win there. Terran Empire would be so evil that they'd have more sith than baby-slaughering contest.

[Wyrven]

Oh, I agree, they use something to shape the charge of a torp, but that makes it even more terrifying in my book. Want to kill a planet? Ok Phaser a hole a couple KM deep (Shown in the episode with Yar's sister) then lob Gigaton shaped charges at the mantle or the core till something breaks. Want to scare a populace into surrender, here have a torp at maximum load out with maximum environmental damage...enjoy the gamma rays.:eek: How about we punch a couple holes through the relatively thin crust over your oceans exposing all that nice hot magma. Will the semi-liquid rock cool before the ocean evaporates? Scary...really scary and that's not even the good stuff. They detonate stars in this universe, and not just Saruon in Generations. You don't think they kept the readings when the guy from MASH "accidentally" caused a nova when he was experimenting with regenerating his star ((Eww he slept with Troi's mom)?

Why not use the often forgotten transporter and just materialize a high yield antimatter warhead several hundred feet into a volcano, or below the surface of an ocean. Either way the planet is toast, and you waste alot less time and energy.

[DrJackWolfe]

Thats called the Mirror universe my friend. In my book, I have no doubt who would win there. Terran Empire would be so evil that they'd have more sith than baby-slaughering contest.

Oh sure get all peace an' luv on me now:D I'm talking about capabilities not politics, or the minds/souls of the men trusted with this power.

I like the beam idea, again in major systems with comprable tech a lot of this becomes more difficult. How about we sit in a long orbit and use our moon moving tractor beams and our 1000g impulse engines and give a couple dozen rocks a shove? Death Star, we don't need no freaking Death Star


I bet Starbase one would give them some pause.

[Zyrious]

I dont think it really matters if the Federation is *capable* of destroying a planet. I mean, in the sense of actually doing it, as some have proposed. Obviously, its useful in a way of "debating weapon power". However, you'll never see the federation actually do it, as it would obviously break probably 100 different regulations...

Now, the Empire i'm sure would be more than willing to glass/vaporize a couple planets to scare the populace into submission... *steps back out of debate*...

Is it just me, or does it seem all the pro-wars debaters have checked out of this debate, and its just a trekky or two playing devils advocate(poorly) now.

[starshipcaptain]

I think they are calld transphasic torpedoes and their strong. could desroy a city in one shot i think

[Ilithi_Dragon]

could desroy a city in one shot i think

Little Boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy) could destroy a city in one shot, and it was 'just' 15 kiilotons (est.). A photon torpedo is 6666.67 - 66666.67 times more powerful. A 100 - 1000 megaton blast would level New York City, no trans-phasics needed.

[Vardus]

The eternal debate. My feelings are pretty basic. If you match up the empire as it was in Empire Strikes back, and Starfleet as it was in Nemisis; there is an unavoidable fact. Starfleet would whip the Empire. Lets look at basic Tech factors. The highly debated light speed Vs. Warp. Lets just say for argument sake that they are similar, and that .5 past the speed of light (As stated by Solo in a new hope) is equal to warp 5. Now Solo mentioned that he had out run Imperial Starships, and not the local bulk cruisers (a.k.a. Victory Class Star Destroyers). Were talking the Big Correlian Ships now (a.k.a. Imperial 1 or 2 Class Star Destroyers). That is a match up of warp 5 to warp 9. This answers the speed factor. Now lets assume that laser means the same thing in both places. And lets assume that a Turbo laser is the equivalent of a phaser. The fighters all use lasers, so they would be like nats against federation sheilds. This brings up the turbo lasers on Star Destroyers. They are a true concern, if they match up to federation phasers or even disruptors. The sheer number of Turbo lasers on a Star Destroyer makes it a force to be respected. Let alone the Super Star Destroyer, or Death Star. Lets even assume that a Proton Torpedo is equal to a Photon torpedo. This would be an advantage for the Feds, being that they have such weapons as Quantum Torpedos, Tricobalt warheads, and even Transphasic Torpedos. So in fire power there are advantages to both.

Now lets look at sheilding. Assuming they are of equal strength, lets look at the weakness of the Star Destroyers. The Big Coning towers that have the two Giant Sheild emitters on the top. If basic lasers from an A-Wing (See Return of the Jedi), can penetrate and destroy the Sheilds on a Super Star Destroyer, this says alot about them. I feel that Feds would figure this out in pretty short order, and take advantage. Then we look at things like metaphasic sheilding that can allow a starship to enter the corona of a star, or even the federation phaze cloak. In Empire the Captain of the Star Destroyer Avenger makes a comment about a cloaking device being on the falcon, but we never see one. This also brings up the point of sensors, being that the star destroyer could not detect the falcon while it was attached to it. Nor did it detect it in the debris field before it left.

The Death Star............ Yes it can destroy a planet. And if the 2nd version was completed it would be unstoppable to conventional weapons. But lets look at the solar probe developed by Soran in generations. Lets catch the death star in a solar system with it's crappy sensors, and blow up the star nearby.

All this pales in comparison to the true unavoidable fact. In the Star Wars series, a band of under powered rebels defeated the Empire. Their equipment was outdated in comparison to the Empire, and their numbers were tiny in comparison as well. They managed to defeat the Empire, and return the Galaxy to a Republic. And as much as it irritates me to acknowledge this point (Because i think it's pure BS!) Overgrown Teddy bears defeated "An Entire legion" of the Emperors BEST Troops. So the Federation stepping in place of the Rebellion (With it's far superior equipment and numbers), is not that big of a stretch.

Just my 2 cents, take as you will.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Interesting points, Vardus. I don't agree with most of your assessment, because it depends too much on unfounded assumptions (the FTL speed thing, for example - Han's comment of .5 past lightspeed is ambiguous; it could mean anything, because .5 "what" was never stated. Assuming that it is equivalent to Warp 5 is just a guess), but you do have a good point about the Teddy Bears.

However, it is not necessarily BS. In all the SW incarnations, from Episode I to Episode VI, we never see the anyone using projectile weapons. It's all energy-based. From all appearances, projectile weapons have not been used for an incredible amount of time. As such, neither side would have much need to develop armor to protect against projectile weapons and kinetic impacts. The light walker's armor is probably very effective against energy weapons, because that is the main weapon type it would have to deal with, where as kinetic weapons would be of little concern, making the impact of a pair of very large, massive logs on either side very effective (and making a tumble to the ground fatal). This would also explain why Stormtrooper armor could be penetrated by bow and arrows, clubs and rocks. They're designed to defend against blasters, a particle- or plasma-based energy weapon, not kinetic weapons.

This wouldn't be much of a weakness against the Federation, which uses energy weapons almost exclusively, but any less-advanced military power (such as the U.S. armed forces) would have a significant advantage, in that their kinetic projectile weaponry would be particularly effective against Imperial forces. Orbital fire support aside, the combined militaries of Earth could probably repell an Imperial invasion quite effectively.

[Vardus]

Well thats the thing with all of the Star Wars Vs. Star Trek debates, it's all assumption. Without the Folks at Lucas Arts, and Paramount coming up with a definitive correlation of tech, it's all guessing. Some things can be pieced together based off of real world measurements, but there are too many unanswered factors to truly decide a winner.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Well thats the thing with all of the Star Wars Vs. Star Trek debates, it's all assumption. Without the Folks at Lucas Arts, and Paramount coming up with a definitive correlation of tech, it's all guessing. Some things can be pieced together based off of real world measurements, but there are too many unanswered factors to truly decide a winner.

I disagree. There are some things that we simply don't have enough data on to accurately measure and compare, but there is a lot of data available, if a proper analysis is undertaken. A lot of it takes some effort to determine - we're rarely given anything on a silver platter of direct comment, but that's half the fun! Undertaking the research and analysis to determine values and figures for anything from weapons yields, to fleet counts, to personnel numbers, to FTL and STL speeds, and more. Granted, it's rare that we'll be able to get exact figures, even after extensive analysis, but we CAN get rough figures, in a fairly close range of capabilities, that we can compare. Comparing these figures as a whole, and adding in real-world knowledge of conflict and war, we can get a fairly accurate determination of who would ultimately win such a conflict.

[Vardus]

It's true that you may be able to figure out statistically what should happen. You can even look at what each side has done Historically. All this based on clues and a few real world facts that the two franchises have left. But i still disagree that you can truly forcast a winner. There are seriously too many variables. Anything can turn the tide of battle. A plague could hit and wipe out Earth, or a uprising could occur in the ranks of the Empire. Not to mention errors in judgement could cause battles to be lost, that otherwise should not have been. So i guess the point lies in personal opinion, like in any contest or sport. Until the two sides are actually put up against one another, there will forever be the battle of personal loyalty and opinion.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

It's true that you may be able to figure out statistically what should happen. You can even look at what each side has done Historically. All this based on clues and a few real world facts that the two franchises have left. But i still disagree that you can truly forcast a winner. There are seriously too many variables. Anything can turn the tide of battle. A plague could hit and wipe out Earth, or a uprising could occur in the ranks of the Empire. Not to mention errors in judgement could cause battles to be lost, that otherwise should not have been. So i guess the point lies in personal opinion, like in any contest or sport. Until the two sides are actually put up against one another, there will forever be the battle of personal loyalty and opinion.

This could be the determination of such an analysis, that the two forces each have just as much chance of winning, but it isn't necessarily the only outcome. Part of the purpose of such an analysis would be to determine the 'orders of magnitude' for each side, or the level of energy they throw around and absorb in combat. If one side routinely throws around and absorbs a thousand times more energy than the other side, for example, the results would be clear.

And even if it is ultimately indeterminable, it's still a lot of fun to try. } ; = 8 )

[Rocketeer]

Star Wars used to be good.
Back in the 1970s and 80s.


Now it sucks. I'm glad Trek is reclaiming its role as sci-fi king.

[Roberto]

Geez, I don't even know where to jump in here... I'll wait till the next interesting thing pops up.

[Repeat]

I will admit I havent read the entire thread.

I am curious as to whether anyone brought up the research advantages the federation would have because of their ability to have holographic scientists research for them.

[adriancrouton]

Ok i'm going to giv up on the borg.

Now i'm going to focus on "emp" ships being blown up by the "fed".

I serender.

[adriancrouton]

The Activison logo strike's back! You know how it keap's giting blown up at the begining of some ST games.

Now it's takeing it's revenge on the "fed".

Data: Captian it aper's to be a campony logo.

Picard: No it can't be... Data! red ale... BOOM!

[LordEnn]

Is it just me, or does it seem all the pro-wars debaters have checked out of this debate, and its just a trekky or two playing devils advocate(poorly) now.

I've returned. I'm certain that you're overjoyed to hear that. :p

[Catamount]

I will admit I havent read the entire thread.

I am curious as to whether anyone brought up the research advantages the federation would have because of their ability to have holographic scientists research for them.

If you somehow managed to get enough free time to read through every page of this debate, do you know what you'd find? You'd find the same exact 3 arguments repeated in exactly the same way every 10 pages or so. Don't worry, you haven't missed anything.

I guess I could simply say this. We all know that any war between Wars and Trek forces would be an attempt at invasion and subjugation by the Empire. Afterall, the Republic hated wars and could barely keep their own affairs in order. As far as what that war would be like... well, I'm a Terran, and I hope most of you are too :D. I like Terrans. I tend to root for Terrans even when things are stacked against them. I've learned throughout Terran history of our ability to overcome tyranny, to promote justice even in the most unjust of situations, and above all, I've learned of the unconquerable human spirit that separates our tenacious species from many of the others we see in Star Trek. We're a damned fine species, and let me tell you, it'll be a cold day in hell before some corrupt Imperial general comes barging in on us and starts dictating the fate of humanity. Anyone who disagrees is a traitorous fool :p *glares at LordEnn*

[LordEnn]

Anyone who disagrees is a traitorous fool :p *glares at LordEnn*

Actually, I agree. But I serve the successor to the New Republic. Whichever species you belong to, and whichever government your loyalty lies with, the statement below is undeniably true.

it'll be a cold day in hell before some corrupt Imperial general comes barging in on us and starts dictating the fate of humanity.

:p

Do I have your permission to establish a religious movement upon your words?

[Roberto]

I'm glad this thread was Resurrected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umU8vKRNnRw)

[adriancrouton]

Did Data evere dance with an android named Loopay?!

I coudent resist, I just watched Terasure Planet:D

[akira84729]

Why obsolete? What makes you say that? The Empire's technology has a pedigree that's thousands of years old. There is nothing to say that one franchise's tech is more or less obsolete than the others. Imperial ships simply pack more punch per ship. But there's nothing to show that Federation technology is more advanced than Imperial, with the exception of transporters.

by an argument like that... we could say that the vulcans or klingons by themselves should be able to match the empire in terms of development... one this that is being forgotten here is that the federation as an entity is a late comer in the ST galaxy... i think it was a Jean Luc picard put it that the Promellians were off exploring the stars when humans were learning how to make fire.... the technology exists in our circumstance regardless of whether were aware of it and millenia of space faring cultures trade and exploration equate with the current levels of technology seen in ST, not just some 200 year old organization with an exspansive research budget.

[akira84729]

Lol. It's not an argument, mate.

You know as well as I do that the Empire is galactic. Why do you say it's not? Because Dragon says so?

and thats a lie... even in the movies it stated that were rimward regions... even stretches of planet straight coreward that weren't imperial control. IE corellia for instance... corellia and it 30 or so associated colony systems were not under imperial control they seceded from the republic shortly before it's dissolution during clone war affairs... and that is cannon... supported by legitimately sanction material by lucas and the SW IP... the empire my have had sections that stretch from one end of the galaxy to another... but it was not truly "Galactic"

[akira84729]

I believe these stats are from the Imperial Sourcebook. I believe that's were Wookiepedia gets:

"A sector group was the sum total of Naval strength which the Empire expected to commit to a normal sector. A high admiral commanded a sector group, a title usually granted to the moff who governed the sector. In sectors that were involved in constant and severe naval actions, the high admiral was a separate position from the Moff. A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers, and another 1,600 combat starships, more than a dozen communications cruisers and a considerable number of non-combat and support craft."

There's more elsewhere, but I'll get to it later if you like. Anyway, I don't want to get into energy-measurement stats. You know how wonky all of that can be. There's no question that turbo blasters or ion cannons, like phasers, are quite destructive weapons capable of inflicting more than a sneeze.

this was after the conflict with the borg and the klingons, but just to retake a "Sector" in the ST world... they had just under 1200 ships not including strikecraft allocated for the Second Battle of DS9.... where not even dicussing ship VS ship here.... just the amount the federation in a weakened state was able to produce... and that was not the full fleet elements since they still frontier fleets and defensive garrisons in place throughout the entire held territories... 1200 ships not including the klingons or reinforcements from the 9th and 2nd fleets which were also allocated and both according to full fielded numbers were about 250-300 vessels a peice.... i think the federation could more than handle a sector to sector fight with th imperials based on numbers...

[Ilithi_Dragon]

and thats a lie... even in the movies it stated that were rimward regions... even stretches of planet straight coreward that weren't imperial control. IE corellia for instance... corellia and it 30 or so associated colony systems were not under imperial control they seceded from the republic shortly before it's dissolution during clone war affairs... and that is cannon... supported by legitimately sanction material by lucas and the SW IP... the empire my have had sections that stretch from one end of the galaxy to another... but it was not truly "Galactic"

Actually, the A New Hope novelization specifically states that the Empire constituted a small portion of a modest-sized galaxy. In AotC, the map Kenobi is looking for Kamino on clearly zooms into a region near the core of the SW galaxy, despite the fact that Kamino is supposedly well beyond the Outer Rim. In the ANH novelization, the Empire is said to control 1 million systems, which would equate to some 12,000 lightyears across, if referring to inhabited systems in our galaxy per Drake's Equation (5,000 lightyears if just star systems, habitable or not), and probably less in the SW galaxy, given Qui-Gon's statement in TPM that most stars in the SW galaxy have habitable planets (the percentage in our galaxy is significantly less than most). In a modest-sized galaxy (<50,000 lighyears - the average size in our Local Group, even excluding galaxies under 10,000 lightyears, is some 36,500 lightyears in diameter) in which most star systems have an inhabitable planet, the Empire and the Republic could very easily occupy a region of space only a few thousand lightyears across, smaller than the Federation (though undoubtedly wit a greater population density).

[akira84729]

Don't be hasty. The Enterprise was virtually K-Oed by one vessel the size of the Scimitar (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Scimitar). A galaxy-class starship would be hard-pressed indeed to overwhelm an ISD.

With that in mind, what in the name of Matt Decker would it do to a Super Star Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SW_Executor_01.jpg), a ship estimated to be between 11 and 19 kilometres long?

your right... that was sans warpcore... and the larger had the advantage of surprise... you TRY cloaking an ISD or ISSD.... the amount of power required alone would make sure that the designs for such a vessel would be nothing more than 1 really big hull 1 really big power source and 1 really effin huge cloak... the proportions on which Imperial vessels are founded work fine in there own universe... but in a Universe of advanced fusion engines and pinpoint weaponry and matter energy conversation... Imperial tech just can't keep up....

to manuever at such slow speeds ISD's need ion drives of massive proportion... larger than most of the fed vessel they'd encounter.... that is just inefficient no matter how you look at it.

[LordEnn]

I think that we've already covered that. :p

[Ilithi_Dragon]

this was after the conflict with the borg and the klingons, but just to retake a "Sector" in the ST world... they had just under 1200 ships not including strikecraft allocated for the Second Battle of DS9.... where not even dicussing ship VS ship here.... just the amount the federation in a weakened state was able to produce... and that was not the full fleet elements since they still frontier fleets and defensive garrisons in place throughout the entire held territories... 1200 ships not including the klingons or reinforcements from the 9th and 2nd fleets which were also allocated and both according to full fielded numbers were about 250-300 vessels a peice.... i think the federation could more than handle a sector to sector fight with th imperials based on numbers...

Actually, it was 600 ships. Just elements of the 2nd and 5th Fleets were able to compose some 600 ships, with elements of the 9th Fleet to provide an additional 600 ships. 9th Fleet wasn't able to make it in time for the battle, though. Those are just elements of those three fleets, though, not their entire force, and we know Starfleet operated several other Fleets, scattered in various theaters of operation across the Federation.


Also, the Imperial Sourcebook is not canon.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I think that we've already covered that. :p

lol Yeah. I'm not gonna try and keep up with the new guy anymore tonight (or this week, for that matter - mid terms. } : = 8 / ).

[akira84729]

Actually, the A New Hope novelization specifically states that the Empire constituted a small portion of a modest-sized galaxy. In AotC, the map Kenobi is looking for Kamino on clearly zooms into a region near the core of the SW galaxy, despite the fact that Kamino is supposedly well beyond the Outer Rim. In the ANH novelization, the Empire is said to control 1 million systems, which would equate to some 12,000 lightyears across, if referring to inhabited systems in our galaxy per Drake's Equation (5,000 lightyears if just star systems, habitable or not), and probably less in the SW galaxy, given Qui-Gon's statement in TPM that most stars in the SW galaxy have habitable planets (the percentage in our galaxy is significantly less than most). In a modest-sized galaxy (<50,000 lighyears - the average size in our Local Group, even excluding galaxies under 10,000 lightyears, is some 36,500 lightyears in diameter) in which most star systems have an inhabitable planet, the Empire and the Republic could very easily occupy a region of space only a few thousand lightyears across, smaller than the Federation (though undoubtedly wit a greater population density).

ok... based on that alone the argument loses credibility due the fact end to end the takes at least 2 years at 9.975.... the federation is estimated at just over 11,000 lightyears and has hundreds of memberworlds most of them being pre-coalition of planet colonies from someone primary member planets. so it's not so two-bit regional power as i believe someone so eloquently put it.

[akira84729]

Actually, it was 600 ships. Just elements of the 2nd and 5th Fleets were able to compose some 600 ships, with elements of the 9th Fleet to provide an additional 600 ships. 9th Fleet wasn't able to make it in time for the battle, though. Those are just elements of those three fleets, though, not their entire force, and we know Starfleet operated several other Fleets, scattered in various theaters of operation across the Federation.


Also, the Imperial Sourcebook is not canon.

in the episode itself the full elements of the invasion were 1900 ships intotal excluding the klingons if you watch the early moments of SoA before the fleet departs when the courier message is received forcing the early departure you'll see the references to the larger fleet elements that were supposed to join mainly the 9th and 2nd fleets with remnants of the 11th and 7th to follow suit... the battle itself was only fought 600 though you are correct.

[akira84729]

lol Yeah. I'm not gonna try and keep up with the new guy anymore tonight (or this week, for that matter - mid terms. } : = 8 / ).

and sorry for the haphazard posting i'll stop with that alot of it was in response to what was said earlier alot of it was so absurd i could no longer hold my tongue...

[Ilithi_Dragon]

in the episode itself the full elements of the invasion were 1900 ships intotal excluding the klingons if you watch the early moments of SoA before the fleet departs when the courier message is received forcing the early departure you'll see the references to the larger fleet elements that were supposed to just mainly the 9th and 2nd fleets with remnants of the 11th and 7th to follow suit... the battle itself was only fought 600 though you are correct.

D'you have an exact time for the listing of the ships? I can't remember at what point in the episode he gave it.


and sorry for the haphazard posting i'll stop with that alot of it was in response to what was said earlier alot of it was so absurd i could no longer hold my tongue...

Protip: Put them into one larger post instead of several single-point posts. } ; = 8 )

[akira84729]

D'you have an exact time for the listing of the ships? I can't remember at what point in the episode he gave it.




Protip: Put them into one larger post instead of several single-point posts. } ; = 8 )

Ex Artris Scientia should have a full listing... other than that i know of no other source material on the web i would just suggest watching Sacrifice of Angels and the last 10 minutes of the preceding episode... they have them on You Tube...


also i'm out for the night... i hope to be able to partcipate again soon, if anybody finds any sources contradicting the data i've provided i'd appreciate a Private message :) after they post here of course :D

[adriancrouton]

ah crap....i don't even bother reading all that...you guys just write too much :p

don't you think this discusion has gone a lil bit to far? you're comparing the very d of details....

He's right you know.

This thread is geting a little boring and a little to deep.


Peanut's!!!!!!

[Catamount]

The universe itself seems incomplete if someone is not arguing about something on this thread...

[Catamount]

Oh, and I claim the 1,100th reply :D

[adriancrouton]

I found this star wars spoof with lego's, I think it's really funny.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3546d5c28c8ffec4ff

i not shure if this link is working, cuz it's not for me.So tell me if it is working.

[adriancrouton]

c'mon pep's we got to ceep this thred moveing!

let's try to get 2,100 post's!

[Konya]

Well, I'd prefer it if they could just get along and we didn't have these discussions, but SW uses lasers. Lasers don't work on Starships.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Well, I'd prefer it if they could just get along and we didn't have these discussions, but SW uses lasers. Lasers don't work on Starships.

That's not correct. Indications in the SW canon are that the SW blaster/turbolaser technology is not laser-based, but some kind of particle or plasma weaponry. Further, while Trek shields have a great resistance to coherent and incoherent EM radiation (light, x-rays, gamma rays, lasers, etc.), they cannot be impervious to it, not without violating the laws of physics. Deflecting that radiation still requires an expenditure of energy, even if the energy expended to deflect/scatter the radiation is vastly less than the energy of the radiation itself. A sufficiently powerful laser would be able to damage, even punch clean through a Trek ship's shields, because Trek ships simply do not have infinite power sources, nor shields that can withstand or channel infinite amounts of energy. Eventually, they will reach the limit of their capacity.


That said, even without laser-based weaponry, Wars ships have not demonstrated the energy yields necessary to combat Trek ships, nor have they demonstrated the range and accuracy of fire to do so. Trek ships have demonstrated energy yields in the megaton/petajoule to gigaton/exajoule range, routinely, where as Wars weapons have rarely coughed up a kiloton/terajoule-range explosion, outside of the Death Star (which may well use a sort of induced reaction in the target material to generate the massive releases of energy required to destroy a planet, instead of being a direct-energy-application weapon). Trek ships have routinely demonstrated the ability to accurately fire phasers at ranges of tens of thousands, even two hundred thousand kilometers, with torpedoes ranging into the millions even billions of kilometers. Wars ships have rarely demonstrated the ability to fire on ships more than a few kilometers away, let alone with any accuracy. A generous estimate puts the maximum range a Wars capital ship could engage another capital ship at some 100 kilometers. To put that in real-world terms to be better understood, say the Enterprise-D is the USS Iowa, which can fire on targets ten miles away, with reasonable accuracy. To place an ISD into this image, we would need a ship somewhere around the size of four super-carriers, whose guns had a maximum range of 26 feet, 4.8 inches. To go with actual demonstrated ranges, with ships firing on each other from less than four kilometers away, that quad-supercarrier-sized ship would have a weapons range of 1 foot, 0.672 inch. And half the time, it would miss at anything over half that range. Effective weapons ranges for Wars ships would be like a gun that could accurately fire on targets half a foot away, while Trek ships could accurately fire on targets 10 miles away.

[Catamount]

Hey, Ilithi, your thread came back...

You know, another point to make here is that even if by some miracle, Star Wars ships had the numbers behind them to make up for the pitiful effective range of their weapons (millions of ships), and somehow had weapons hundreds or thousands of times as powerful hiding in their ships somewhere so that they could, in fact somehow take on Star Trek ships and beat the UFP and friends, all the Federation has to do is wait a century or two and come back with better tech. The UFP has shown more technological growth in the years between TOS and TNG (~100 years) than Star Wars did between KOTOR and the Galactic Civil War (~4000 years). In fact, Star Trek showed more technological advancement since the beginning of Picard's command over the Star Gazer to 2379 (~45 years) than Wars showed in the aforementioned 4000 year period.

[Konya]

That's not correct. Indications in the SW canon are that the SW blaster/turbolaser technology is not laser-based, but some kind of particle or plasma weaponry. Further, while Trek shields have a great resistance to coherent and incoherent EM radiation (light, x-rays, gamma rays, lasers, etc.), they cannot be impervious to it, not without violating the laws of physics. Deflecting that radiation still requires an expenditure of energy, even if the energy expended to deflect/scatter the radiation is vastly less than the energy of the radiation itself. A sufficiently powerful laser would be able to damage, even punch clean through a Trek ship's shields, because Trek ships simply do not have infinite power sources, nor shields that can withstand or channel infinite amounts of energy. Eventually, they will reach the limit of their capacity.


That said, even without laser-based weaponry, Wars ships have not demonstrated the energy yields necessary to combat Trek ships, nor have they demonstrated the range and accuracy of fire to do so. Trek ships have demonstrated energy yields in the megaton/petajoule to gigaton/exajoule range, routinely, where as Wars weapons have rarely coughed up a kiloton/terajoule-range explosion, outside of the Death Star (which may well use a sort of induced reaction in the target material to generate the massive releases of energy required to destroy a planet, instead of being a direct-energy-application weapon). Trek ships have routinely demonstrated the ability to accurately fire phasers at ranges of tens of thousands, even two hundred thousand kilometers, with torpedoes ranging into the millions even billions of kilometers. Wars ships have rarely demonstrated the ability to fire on ships more than a few kilometers away, let alone with any accuracy. A generous estimate puts the maximum range a Wars capital ship could engage another capital ship at some 100 kilometers. To put that in real-world terms to be better understood, say the Enterprise-D is the USS Iowa, which can fire on targets ten miles away, with reasonable accuracy. To place an ISD into this image, we would need a ship somewhere around the size of four super-carriers, whose guns had a maximum range of 26 feet, 4.8 inches. To go with actual demonstrated ranges, with ships firing on each other from less than four kilometers away, that quad-supercarrier-sized ship would have a weapons range of 1 foot, 0.672 inch. And half the time, it would miss at anything over half that range. Effective weapons ranges for Wars ships would be like a gun that could accurately fire on targets half a foot away, while Trek ships could accurately fire on targets 10 miles away.

Indeed. However, a small amount of star trek technology does use lasers and they would be useless on Federation ships. Yes, they would be eventually able to overpower a starship, but by the time they did, they'd be destroyed.

[SelorKiith]

Star Wars weapons usage could be simply minimized to "Spray'n'Pray"...

[osena]

you not acounting for the numbers of the Darth Sidious fleet even Darth vaders fleet has like 100 ships give or take the empires fleet they out number starfleet 100 to 1

[Paulo999]

you not acounting for the numbers of the Darth Sidious fleet even Darth vaders fleet has like 100 ships give or take the empires fleet they out number starfleet 100 to 1

yet they cant stop a few ships flying through a vent or trench... sorry star wars has no hope.. starfleets look badass :P Prometheus for example :P the Empire ships... dont

[osena]

yet they cant stop a few ships flying through a vent or trench... sorry star wars has no hope.. starfleets look badass :P Prometheus for example :P the Empire ships... dont

ill give you the promeheus looks bad ass and you want escape me ill use the force to choke you lol:D

[kekvin85]

Star trek Tech is superior to SW. ST tatics Are supeior to SW. A Base the size of a small moon would have thousands and thousands of fighters so how did the empire go and get the Death Star bown up? The rebels should have been massivly outguned and outnumbered

[Catamount]

double post :(

[adriancrouton]

yet they cant stop a few ships flying through a vent or trench... sorry star wars has no hope.. starfleets look badass :P Prometheus for example :P the Empire ships... dont

A... thay wernt "ship's" thay were fighter's, And thay were only 12.5 meter's long, And the EMP tryed to shot them down with Terbo-lasers, That would be like trying to shot a fly with a 50-cal.

[Catamount]

you not acounting for the numbers of the Darth Sidious fleet even Darth vaders fleet has like 100 ships give or take the empires fleet they out number starfleet 100 to 1

and yet Star Trek's hit to miss ratio will be approximately a billion to one over Star Wars, which means even given equal strength they'll only destroy one Starfleet ship per 10 million Imperial ships lost :D

Star trek Tech is superior to SW. ST tatics Are supeior to SW. A Base the size of a small moon would have thousands and thousands of fighters so how did the empire go and get the Death Star bown up? The rebels should have been massivly outguned and outnumbered

Actually Star Wars tactics are scarcely more complex than fleet battles from 500 years ago, with ships featuring the same relative lack of agility and accuracy. Star Wars ships even have to go broadside with each other! Honestly, the lumbering capital ships of Wars and their static nature in battle doesn't even begin to allow for the complex and fluid fleet tactics encountered by Starfleet. In the Galactic Civil War, if a Star Destroyer was our 300km of your starboard, you can pretty much count on it being there until hell freezes over or it gets blown up. In the Dominion War, that Dominion cruiser that's 300,000km of your starboard could be right on top of you in a matter of seconds.

A... thay wernt "ship's" thay were fighter's, And thay were only 12.5 meter's long, And the EMP tryed to shot them down with Terbo-lasers, That would be like trying to shot a fly with a 50-cal.

What he said is that the Death Star should have had its own compliment of countless fighters (instead of the dozen or two they dispatched) and that they should have overwhelmed the Rebels almost instantly.

[Snapshot_9]

i would also like to point out that, not only do trek ships have the tactical advantage, and i have said this before. But the death star fired and hit the Mon Calamari and didnt destroy it, its stated she is crippled, which helps the theory of the weapon causing a chain reaction on planets.

[Paulo999]

A... thay wernt "ship's" thay were fighter's, And thay were only 12.5 meter's long, And the EMP tryed to shot them down with Terbo-lasers, That would be like trying to shot a fly with a 50-cal.

ok fine episode 6 ... imperials have the big blower upper gun a fleet twice the size of the rebels and more fighters .. an army on the moon yet they get defeated by some yanks flying through miles of construction.. and minitaure bears on steroids

[vp21ct]

I think we've pounded SW vs ST:TNG into the ground. The TNG era just has some really out and awesome powerratings. Now what I wan't to know is, what about SW vs ST:MP era. There would be a signifigantly different battle, imo.

For one thing, the federation IS geared for war during this time, as they have half their ships fitted for combat in preparation for the klingons calling the Organian bluff. In adition, the federation probably more combat experienced captains during this era as well.

Thoughts, opinions, rants.

[Zyrious]

and yet Star Trek's hit to miss ratio will be approximately a billion to one over Star Wars, which means even given equal strength they'll only destroy one Starfleet ship per 10 million Imperial ships lost :D



Actually Star Wars tactics are scarcely more complex than fleet battles from 500 years ago, with ships featuring the same relative lack of agility and accuracy. Star Wars ships even have to go broadside with each other! Honestly, the lumbering capital ships of Wars and their static nature in battle doesn't even begin to allow for the complex and fluid fleet tactics encountered by Starfleet. In the Galactic Civil War, if a Star Destroyer was our 300km of your starboard, you can pretty much count on it being there until hell freezes over or it gets blown up. In the Dominion War, that Dominion cruiser that's 300,000km of your starboard could be right on top of you in a matter of seconds.



What he said is that the Death Star should have had its own compliment of countless fighters (instead of the dozen or two they dispatched) and that they should have overwhelmed the Rebels almost instantly.

Uh....As far as speed is concerned, Star Destroyers are capable of keeping up with the Millenium falcon, and going from planetary orbit to the other side of a solar system is a minimum of time. This is stated and seen in the movies. From Film Staff comments to the common sense fact that they had limits in their use of the star destroyer models... It was intended, however, that Star Destroyers were pretty fast and outrunning them was a feat upon itself.

Also, is it just me, or has this turned from Startrek vs starwars into a thread where star trek fans just orgasm over their phasers and unopposedly bash Star Wars with the occasional half-assed devils advocate?

[vp21ct]

Actually, we of the devils advocate camp have made some rather kick ass arguments. The problem is Illithi just shoots them down (he's good).

If it makes you feel any better, you can probably just tune back in in a month or two and the view points will have swiched.

Ironically, ST:CW has been doing good things to the SW side. We now know that you can infact hyperdrive while in a gravity well, its just nor recomended because it sends you WAY off course.

[DoctorWhat]

Star trek Tech is superior to SW. ST tatics Are supeior to SW. A Base the size of a small moon would have thousands and thousands of fighters so how did the empire go and get the Death Star bown up? The rebels should have been massivly outguned and outnumbered

It's called conventional writing. Star Trek has conventional writing as well. Why do you think Picard's Enterprise dropped random shield percentages when running into the same enemy or enemies with similar power weapons. How did the Enterprise survive longer in the movies? How did Voyager survive unbelievably longer against the borg?

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Why do you think Picard's Enterprise dropped random shield percentages when running into the same enemy or enemies with similar power weapons.

Perhaps because no two battles are identical, even when facing the same enemy?


How did the Enterprise survive longer in the movies? How did Voyager survive unbelievably longer against the borg?

There actually is a logical explanation, or at least partial explanation, for that that is often overlooked, largely because it's such a small detail that was very easy to miss. In one of the early Q episodes, before Voyager started tangling with the Borg, at the end of the episode, in thanks for whatever Voyager helped Q with at the time, he gave Janeway a PADD. That PADD, as Q told Janeway, contained instructions for how to modify their shield grid to increase its capacity ten fold. So, from the very early days of her trek home, Voyager was running with some very enhanced defensive systems, including shields ten times stronger than anything the standard Intrepid class would have (at least until Voyager got back home and shared the tech and info). Now, that doesn't make Voyager invincible, but it does help explain why she was able to survive so much, even against the Borg.

[Catamount]

Uh....As far as speed is concerned, Star Destroyers are capable of keeping up with the Millenium falcon, and going from planetary orbit to the other side of a solar system is a minimum of time. This is stated and seen in the movies. From Film Staff comments to the common sense fact that they had limits in their use of the star destroyer models... It was intended, however, that Star Destroyers were pretty fast and outrunning them was a feat upon itself.

Also, is it just me, or has this turned from Startrek vs starwars into a thread where star trek fans just orgasm over their phasers and unopposedly bash Star Wars with the occasional half-assed devils advocate?

If you feel Star Wars is being under-represented, you're free to change that. Though, honestly, it's usually the Wars fans having orgasms over their weapons. It's not my job to be a devil's advocate here, I just say what the evidence I'm aware of suggests. Actually, I'm not aware that anyone here has "bashed" Star Wars. Again though, no one is stopping you from speaking to the contrary if you feel we're wrong.

Also, I'm not quite sure what "a minimum of time" means. To 21st century humans that means like 10 years. What I do know is that the point is somewhat irrelevant because the inherent gross inaccuracy of Wars weaponry is not conducive to a high speed battle in the first place. As to actual sub-light capabilities, that would be more in Ilithi's area, but it wouldn't change much in this fight even if they had 10 times the acceleration capability that a smaller, faster Trek ship did.

[Catamount]

There actually is a logical explanation, or at least partial explanation, for that that is often overlooked, largely because it's such a small detail that was very easy to miss. In one of the early Q episodes, before Voyager started tangling with the Borg, at the end of the episode, in thanks for whatever Voyager helped Q with at the time, he gave Janeway a PADD. That PADD, as Q told Janeway, contained instructions for how to modify their shield grid to increase its capacity ten fold. So, from the very early days of her trek home, Voyager was running with some very enhanced defensive systems, including shields ten times stronger than anything the standard Intrepid class would have (at least until Voyager got back home and shared the tech and info). Now, that doesn't make Voyager invincible, but it does help explain why she was able to survive so much, even against the Borg.

No, Ilithi. BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. Please don't compound one set of bad story writing in Voyager with another. :D

[Teleon]

My opinion is that if this is a pure Star Wars verses Star Trek universe and that all factions etc from Star Wars is in an all out war verses all factions etc from Star Trek… Star Trek wins the War hands down. Q just makes everything Star Wars disappear!

Argument over!

[NIN]

Correct me if im wrong but wasnt there a 29th century borg drone who used his abilites to upgrade voyager tactical systems? ie (weapons & sheilds)

[adriancrouton]

ok fine episode 6 ... imperials have the big blower upper gun a fleet twice the size of the rebels and more fighters .. an army on the moon yet they get defeated by some yanks flying through miles of construction.. and minitaure bears on steroids

#1. The Deth Star took 30 to 60 min to recharg it's super-laser.

#2. The EMP have little or no combat-xp to take out battle-hardend Reb's.

#3. The EMP was take'n by srupise+battle-redy reb's+hijacked AT-ST= reb's victory.

#4. ST has meny thing's on steroids.

[Wildfire30]

Yes there was a hybrid borg who used the Docs holo-emitter and some of 7 of 9s nanites and he was I guess a 29th century borg. He did upgrade Voyagers systems.

As for Star Trek vs Star wars, Star Trek all the way. The ships look cooler and I'm sure that if the Feds built a giant space station with a large killer ray gun, that they would be able to keep a few fighters from flying around a smoke stack and dropping torpedoes down them.

[treknerd]

One Letter "Q"

[Paulo999]

#
1. The Deth Star took 30 to 60 min to recharg it's super-laser.

#2. The EMP have little or no combat-xp to take out battle-hardend Reb's.

#3. The EMP was take'n by srupise+battle-redy reb's+hijacked AT-ST= reb's victory.

#4. ST has meny thing's on steroids.


1: fair enough

2. episode 5

3 ITS A TRAP!!

4. everyoneh as steroids

[Ilithi_Dragon]

#1. The Deth Star took 30 to 60 min to recharg it's super-laser.

#2. The EMP have little or no combat-xp to take out battle-hardend Reb's.

#3. The EMP was take'n by srupise+battle-redy reb's+hijacked AT-ST= reb's victory.

#4. ST has meny thing's on steroids.

1. Not the ship-killing beams. The second DS fired those within a couple minutes of each other

2a. The Empire does have a fair amount of combat experience, and at least some form of training (and if they're all still Kamino-style clones, they have pretty fair training regimens, at least by SW standards)

2b. Even inexperienced soldiers can be effective against trained and battle-hardened warriors if fielded in large enough numbers. The DS should have been able to deploy tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of TIE Fighters at Yavin and Endor each, a numerical advantage so great that a bare handful of Rebel fighter squadrons never should have even gotten close to the Death Star, let alone made multiple attack runs in groups of three at a time.

3. At Yavin, THEY surprised the Rebels, jumping in before the Alliance was ready. At Endor, they once again surprised the Rebels. As Paulo quoted Ackbar: "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

4. Not so much if you exclude most of Voyager. Everything else can be accounted for by just superior technology (and education of personnel and citizens) in general.

[spokechecker5000]

1. Not the ship-killing beams. The second DS fired those within a couple minutes of each other

2a. The Empire does have a fair amount of combat experience, and at least some form of training (and if they're all still Kamino-style clones, they have pretty fair training regimens, at least by SW standards)

2b. Even inexperienced soldiers can be effective against trained and battle-hardened warriors if fielded in large enough numbers. The DS should have been able to deploy tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of TIE Fighters at Yavin and Endor each, a numerical advantage so great that a bare handful of Rebel fighter squadrons never should have even gotten close to the Death Star, let alone made multiple attack runs in groups of three at a time.

3. At Yavin, THEY surprised the Rebels, jumping in before the Alliance was ready. At Endor, they once again surprised the Rebels. As Paulo quoted Ackbar: "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

4. Not so much if you exclude most of Voyager. Everything else can be accounted for by just superior technology (and education of personnel and citizens) in general.


I can agree with most of this but what is your response regarding "Q"? Thats a good point (That is if you are including all the facets of Star Trek in the discussion and not just The Federation VS. The Empire) But I believe the title of the thread was "Star Trek vs. Star Wars?"

[Kiltak]

I have one thing to say.

We are the borg, Resistance is futile!

Vader become Borg Queen husband and the emperior become there lapdog.

In all serious both sides have advantages and disadvantages. So I could see it going either way.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I can agree with most of this but what is your response regarding "Q"? Thats a good point (That is if you are including all the facets of Star Trek in the discussion and not just The Federation VS. The Empire) But I believe the title of the thread was "Star Trek vs. Star Wars?"

I don't usually consider god-like beings in such comparisons as these, because it's no fun to say "Q would win" and be done. The whole purpose of the thread was a discussion of the technological, industrial and military capabilities of the main Star Trek and Star Wars factions: The Federation and the Empire. Not necessarily as stand-alone forces, but following the basic concept that contact is made between the two powers, and hostilities ensue.

So, as the OP for this thread, I'm saying, "Q doesn't count."

[sintar07]

2b. Even inexperienced soldiers can be effective against trained and battle-hardened warriors if fielded in large enough numbers. The DS should have been able to deploy tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of TIE Fighters at Yavin and Endor each, a numerical advantage so great that a bare handful of Rebel fighter squadrons never should have even gotten close to the Death Star, let alone made multiple attack runs in groups of three at a time.


Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going. Not that I'm complaining, it's a great thread :) I just thought it would have simmered down by now.

Anyway, I'd like to point out an important point pertaining to your above point. The DS could have fielded thousands of fighters. But it didn't. Why? Because the Empire is arrogant. They think that because they're the biggest in the galaxy, they'll win, period. They think they can do whatever they like and they'll always come out on top. And they suffer for it.

You see it first in A New Hope, when a few people manage to invade their top secret battle station because of substandard security, or (your example) when they refuse to field their fighters until the last second, and then only a few, and then only because Vader went over Tarkin's head, all because they were so convinced of their stations impregnability.

You see it again in The Empire Strikes Back, when the fleet moves towards Hoth recklessly and falls victim to the surface-to-space ion cannon. Or when Vader demands the Falcon, despite the fact that his ships are being pummeled to pieces by asteroids. Or when he alters his deal with Lando, resulting in the loss of his prisoners and Luke's recovery by the rebellion.

Finally, in Return of the Jedi, the Emperor actually orders his ISDs not to participate in the battle because he wants to show off his new DS, which, by the end of the battle, meant that there were that many more Rebel ships remaining to cover the fighters. And, of course, he managed to completely underestimate the indigenous species of the planet, the Rebels, and Luke, and fully overestimated his own hold on Vader, all due to his horrible arrogance.

The Empire, top to bottom, is filled with astounding levels of judgement impairing arrogance. In the end, it allowed them to be defeated by a ragtag rebellion with patchwork starships. As fun as it is to discuss the technological differences, I'd say that that, more than anything else, is why the Federation would win in a conflict.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

The Empire, top to bottom, is filled with astounding levels of judgement impairing arrogance. In the end, it allowed them to be defeated by a ragtag rebellion with patchwork starships. As fun as it is to discuss the technological differences, I'd say that that, more than anything else, is why the Federation would win in a conflict.

It's not just arrogance, but an inherent level of incompetence. You see, smart, capable, competent and confident people are hard to control, especially if you're an evil, oppressive dictatorship, bent on domination and terror in the name of 'peace.' For the Empire to have highly-skilled, highly competent, adaptable people in its military, they have to be very intelligent, well-educated, be independently-minded enough to make their own competent decisions, and have the confidence that making mistakes, failing, or not following orders to the letter in order to achieve an objective will not result in their immediate execution, in order to make those decisions. The only problem is, those very same traits that make good commanders, soldiers, innovators, etc. also make for people who are very prone to rebellion against oppression and injustice, and who are capable of seeing through the hollow propaganda that the Empire uses to justify itself. If the Imperial Navy were filled with such soldiers, the Emperor would have a very hard time ruling anything. I imagine that, after Palpatine took power at the end of RotS, education levels throughout the galaxy dropped significantly, and programs that inspired individuality, creativity, innovation, different modes of thinking, etc. would have been cut and quashed, while programs that promoted ignorance, radicalization, group thinking, etc. would have been promoted. And that fits with Lucas' vision of the universe, with everything being bright and shiny and newish-looking under the Republic, but worn-out, neglected and run down under the Empire.

In stark contrast, the Federation is a beacon of education, individualism, innovation, creative thinking, and all the myriad of things that make for confident, competent, highly intelligent, well-educated and highly-skilled officers and personnel. As Cat has emphasized time and again, Starfleet personnel, even enlisted crew, have vastly superior education and training to Imperial personnel, higher intelligence, and far greater flexibility, in both thought and action. Even if the Empire were technologically superior (which they're not), the vast divide between the education, intelligence and just plain competence of Federation personnel compared to Imperial personnel would make up for a lot.

[Zyrious]

I can gaurentee right now the empire not fielding thousands of fighters has nothing to do with imperial "incompetence". You could ask lucas himself on that one. It had to do with - limited budget.
And btw lith, though my time in the USAF was short,i can say with some confidence that the training required to make good soldiers and officers does not make one prone to rebellion and such attitudes. Quite the opposite, in fact.

but again, this isnt worth debating unless there were more than 1 intelligent star wars fan here. As it is, this is just a bunch of trekkies wailing on trek with the occasional devils advocate or horribly mispelled counter argument.

And again, i will always roll with common sense. Barring a galaxy wide major disastor, there is no way a galaxy spanning government of "a thousand generations" is more primitive in military technology than a limited pacifistic human civilization that has only been in the space age for 300 years and doesnt even have a dedicated military. If anything, this is more a conflict of writing styles than anything else. aka a "5 series technobabble" vs "3-6 movie without technobabble".

[Prospero]

Iin the TNG episode entitled "Q Who",worf clearly said:

"a type of LASER beam is cutting into the saucer section"

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I can gaurentee right now the empire not fielding thousands of fighters has nothing to do with imperial "incompetence". You could ask lucas himself on that one. It had to do with - limited budget.

And the only reason why we didn't see tens of thousands of ships during the Dominion War was the limited budget. You can't use that as an argument, especially when the context of the discussion is on an in-universe perspective.


but again, this isnt worth debating unless there were more than 1 intelligent star wars fan here. As it is, this is just a bunch of trekkies wailing on trek with the occasional devils advocate or horribly mispelled counter argument.

I agree that it would be more fun if people would bring fresh ideas or actual research of the canon material to the SW side of the debate, but it can still be an interesting discussion without an avid pro-Wars fan. That's the whole reason I started this thread, way back when, for the enjoyment of the intellectual discussion and thought experiment of a war between the Federation and Empire. You don't really need sides for it.


And again, i will always roll with common sense. Barring a galaxy wide major disastor, there is no way a galaxy spanning government of "a thousand generations" is more primitive in military technology than a limited pacifistic human civilization that has only been in the space age for 300 years and doesnt even have a dedicated military. If anything, this is more a conflict of writing styles than anything else. aka a "5 series technobabble" vs "3-6 movie without technobabble".

Except that there is some solid evidence that indicates the SW civilization is NOT galaxy-spanning, and exists in a mid-sized to small-sized galaxy. Further, the Trek interstellar civilization is not as old/young as Earth's space program. There are many members of the Federation who were out warping around the stars a hundred years before Humans invented flying machines, and many remnants of civilizations that date back hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years and more in some cases. Based on comments from Q in TNG "Qpid", for example, the civilization on Tagos III had existed for some two billion years (though whether or not the current civilization residing on the planet was the same civilization that resided there and "really knew how to party" two billion years ago was never specified). The Tkon Empire existed for some indeterminate length of time over 600,000 years ago, though the Age of Makto, in which the Tkon Empire's home star went supernova and the Empire declined to eventual collapse, took place an eon after the Age of Bastu. In astronomical terms, an eon is a span of 1 billion years. Now, ST probably didn't maintain an advanced level of civilization for such an extended period of time, but it is very clear that the interstellar civilization upon which the Federation is built has lasted for much longer than 300 years, and there have been many older powers and civilizations with which the Federation has had contact and relations with, or the opportunity to study advanced technological artifacts from such civilizations.

Additionally, while the Federation is largely non-confrontational, they can't accurately be described as pacifistic - they're not afraid to fight, and have no moral qualms about fighting when necessary, or even being provocative and confrontational when the time calls for it. They also DO have a dedicated military force - that's what Starfleet is. Starfleet is the dedicated military force of the United Federation of Planets. They are not a militia, they are not reserve units, they are an active, full-time, often career military force. They just have broader responsibilities than most present-day military forces.

Lastly, the SW canon indicates that most of the Repbulic's existence was dominated by great eras of peace, with little or no real war since the founding of the Republic. The state of the Republic Navy prior to the Separatist Wars (i.e. little more than a glorified interstellar Coast Guard) is a testament to the lack of conflict and need for military technology. In contrast, the Federation has faced direct and indirect military threats since day one of its founding, from the allied forces of a wartime coalition. They have engaged in multiple shooting wars over their history, and a very long and bitter cold war with the Klingon Empire that lasted nearly a century, if not more. They also engaged in a war with the Cardassians, a war with the Tzenkethi, a war with the Talarians, a war with the Klingons, and a war with the Dominion, not to mention at least two direct Borg incursions, plus at least some additional action with the Borg after Wolf 359 (the USS Excalibur survived an attack by the Borg at some point prior to 2368, which is probably why she was undergoing a refit at at Starbase 234 in TNG "Redemption, Pt II), all within the first three quarters of the 24th Century (what most people believe was a golden era of unprecedented peace for the Federation was actually a rather tumultuous period in which the Federation was engaged in a series of several wars and conflicts). The Federation has needed a strong military presence since its founding, some of the key founding members of the Federation had long traditions of maintaining a strong military force (Andorians and humans, at least), and there were no doubt several other members with similar leanings who joined over the centuries. The Galactic Republic, however, has apparently not needed much more than a Coast Guard-like anti-piracy force for much of its history, or at least for a very long stretch of its history prior to the Clone Wars, leaving the Republic, and then the Empire with very little history and experience with the art of war and combat technologies to build a foundation on (and it shows).

[Zyrious]

And the only reason why we didn't see tens of thousands of ships during the Dominion War was the limited budget. You can't use that as an argument, especially when the context of the discussion is on an in-universe perspective.




I agree that it would be more fun if people would bring fresh ideas or actual research of the canon material to the SW side of the debate, but it can still be an interesting discussion without an avid pro-Wars fan. That's the whole reason I started this thread, way back when, for the enjoyment of the intellectual discussion and thought experiment of a war between the Federation and Empire. You don't really need sides for it.




Except that there is some solid evidence that indicates the SW civilization is NOT galaxy-spanning, and exists in a mid-sized to small-sized galaxy. Further, the Trek interstellar civilization is not as old/young as Earth's space program. There are many members of the Federation who were out warping around the stars a hundred years before Humans invented flying machines, and many remnants of civilizations that date back hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years and more in some cases. Based on comments from Q in TNG "Qpid", for example, the civilization on Tagos III had existed for some two billion years (though whether or not the current civilization residing on the planet was the same civilization that resided there and "really knew how to party" two billion years ago was never specified). The Tkon Empire existed for some indeterminate length of time over 600,000 years ago, though the Age of Makto, in which the Tkon Empire's home star went supernova and the Empire declined to eventual collapse, took place an eon after the Age of Bastu. In astronomical terms, an eon is a span of 1 billion years. Now, ST probably didn't maintain an advanced level of civilization for such an extended period of time, but it is very clear that the interstellar civilization upon which the Federation is built has lasted for much longer than 300 years, and there have been many older powers and civilizations with which the Federation has had contact and relations with, or the opportunity to study advanced technological artifacts from such civilizations.

Additionally, while the Federation is largely non-confrontational, they can't accurately be described as pacifistic - they're not afraid to fight, and have no moral qualms about fighting when necessary, or even being provocative and confrontational when the time calls for it. They also DO have a dedicated military force - that's what Starfleet is. Starfleet is the dedicated military force of the United Federation of Planets. They are not a militia, they are not reserve units, they are an active, full-time, often career military force. They just have broader responsibilities than most present-day military forces.



First, i've seen no "Solid Evidence" stating the SW civilization is not galaxy spanning nor that it is a mid-sized galaxy. Hell, that's actually pretty rediculous. Despite the very small odds of a Dwarf Galaxy having even smaller dwarf galaxies in orbit, there has been *0* elaboration on the size of the galaxy. And even then, based on rough numbers in the CW series and mentions in the movies, the republic/empire has far more worlds in its domain than the federation in its entirity. And The Galactic Republic is also made up of many space-faring cultures and races. There would be no reason for there to be such a large discrepency in tech between ST and SW except for *writing styles*.

And one thing we all have learned from history, is we often gain little from the ancient civilizations that come before us. We use little of roman and egyptian techniques though even some of theirs were superior to what we use today, so i doubt the federation gets much use out of anything a old-defunct ancient civilization may have scrounged up.

And as far as in-universe explanation for there not being 1000 tie fighters? There is none. There might be for your star trek example, but even lucas has made it clear there's no explanation, it just is. The Empire isnt negligent, the empire isnt underfunded, Lucas just didnt even want to try and attempt a large fighter battle with 2 tie fighter models and an x-wing model. So one might even presume, that if one were forced to place canon on it, that perhaps there was a large force, and the superior x-wing models (stolen from the empire. See: RotS Commentary) outperformed and outran the majority of the tie response force (And eventually the empire made the Tie Interceptor to counter this). With the exception of Vader personal flight, of course.

and as mentioned before, with my short time in the USAF and a military family i believe i can confidently say that the training used to make good soldiers and officers does not produce rebellion prone people. It does the opposite. Infact, besides physical improvement, BMT's sole purpose is to destroy your individuality and install discipline.

but again, most debates (atleast in college level debate classes) are only enjoyable and have adequate echange of info if there are equal sides in the argument that can scrounge up equal amounts of data and arguments. This is a "1 sided argument" and not much can be gained by me going it alone. Which i why i've opted out before. Someone go over to the TOR boards and get some recruits. lol :P

[Catamount]

You know Zyrious, I don't entirely disagree on every point (especially where the Galaxy size is concerned), but I have to say that your experiences in the military are hardly analogous to the Empire as a whole, for a few reasons. First, as someone with some obvious education, I'm sure you're aware of the fallacy in assuming that one's own personal experiences account to any significant degree for what any given society experiences as a whole. That said, while I agree that what you experienced is probably consistent with what's generally true of the US military (which is really what you should say in the place of "in my experience"), you're comparing apples to oranges. The US is a democratic society and a prosperous industrialized nation. Our military is a volunteer organization (save for the rare occurrence of a draft). Over the course of most of our history, there's been no reason for people within the US military to defect or rebel in significant numbers.

If you look at the history of other nations more analogous to the Empire, however, you find the Ilithi is absolutely right. In fact, Star Wars sugar-coats what the Empire would really have to do to maintain control where the elimination of intellectuals is concerned (or at least doesn't go into it). Take the USSR. In 1940, in anticipation of Soviet control over Poland, Stalin ordered the mass murder of 15,000 Polish officers, intellectuals and professionals at Katyn, eliminating those elements of the population that were most likely to resist Soviet control. That's to say nothing for how many educated people were sent to labor camps or executed with Russian borders for the same reason (though I don't have a good figure there off hand). Overall levels of education absolutely tanked during Imperial rule, and that would certainly impact the Imperial Navy. Also, you have to realize that training has nothing to do with it, but there's more to the intelligence of such a force than simple military training, especially where the UFP is concerned (which is what this whole conversation is about). Ilithi isn't saying that military training makes for rebellious personnel, just general education (at least in a society like the Imperial controlled Wars galaxy). I've made this point too many times to make it again, so rather than reiterate what I've said a thousand times I'll just keep it simple. Starfleet Personnel > Imperial Personnel, except where markmanship is concerned maybe since the Empire is STILL using manually targeted turrets to hit ships (so much for high technology).

As a final point, if you feel there are points to be made in Wars' defense, you should make them. The strength of an argument is in the validity of the points that make it up, not the number of people standing behind it.

[CaptainOsaka]

the empire would lose in terms of technology, the Star Destroyer while powerful in its own right with its 100 Turbo Lasers, wont matter much if its easily losses not in fire power but in hull intergrity there a huge possiblity that Deflectors wont stand up to phasers or even stop them.

The Death Star while a powerful weapon, it`s still a slow spinning weapon that can only fire at a certain Arc infront of it. Basically the Imperial Fleet while large, would lose due to there obeslete Technology if it the Federation didn`t take out the Empire the Borg would certaintly crush them.

[sintar07]

Barring a galaxy wide major disastor, there is no way a galaxy spanning government of "a thousand generations" is more primitive in military technology than a limited pacifistic human civilization that has only been in the space age for 300 years and doesnt even have a dedicated military.
Normally this would stand to reason, but the Star Wars galaxy is stagnant. They have barely changed at all since the discovery of hyperspace. In fact, apart from the hyperdrive itself (and perhaps droid intelligence) there hasn't been any new technology since said discovery. In 4000 BBY, they had blasters, hyperdrives, lightsabers, and droids. In 5 ABY (I think that was the official end of the war) they had... slightly more powerful blasters, slightly faster hyperdrives, lightsabers without power cords, and more annoying droids. Apart from the Death Star, there's pretty much nothing new at all. And even the Death Star is just a more powerful version of existing technology. They don't even come up with a new way to power it; they just make a bigger battery. Despite their age, there is no innovation whatsoever in the Star Wars galaxy. In Star Trek, on the other hand, Starfleet commonly makes new and innovative advances. That's why their technology is superior. it's not 4000 years of development vs 300. It's 4000 years of more of the same vs 300 of leaps and bounds of innovation.
And even then, based on rough numbers in the CW series and mentions in the movies, the republic/empire has far more worlds in its domain than the federation in its entirity. And The Galactic Republic is also made up of many space-faring cultures and races.

Yes, many space faring cultures and races that the Empire quashed immediately upon gaining power. They very rarely make use of the many extraordinary talent and skill available to them in their galaxy, instead opting for conformity. I also would like to point out, again, that the empire, despite their galaxy spanning mass of planets, lost the war against the small and relatively unsupported Rebellion.
And as far as in-universe explanation for there not being 1000 tie fighters? There is none. There might be for your star trek example, but even lucas has made it clear there's no explanation, it just is. The Empire isnt negligent, the empire isnt underfunded, Lucas just didnt even want to try and attempt a large fighter battle with 2 tie fighter models and an x-wing model.
That statement makes no sense. There has to be an in universe explanation. The fact that it happened demands an explanation because it shouldn't have. So unless you're actually suggesting that thousands of TIE fighters managed to take part in the fight without the Rebels noticing, I believe my explanation stands. Grand Moff Tarkin, being the arrogant little moron that he was, felt that it would be a wasted effort to field them. He was wrong, and because of that he died with the Death Star. You can't simply insist that the Imperial arrogance and incompetence doesn't exist just because Lucas had a budget. The screen evidence is conclusive. And not just from that movie.
So one might even presume, that if one were forced to place canon on it, that perhaps there was a large force, and the superior x-wing models (stolen from the empire. See: RotS Commentary) outperformed and outran the majority of the tie response force (And eventually the empire made the Tie Interceptor to counter this).
This argument could work if they had made mention of other fighters anywhere in that battle, but they didn't. Also, the battle took near a half hour. There's no way that said other fighters wouldn't have gotten in on the fight by then. The only explanation is that they weren't launched. Also, it should be noted that the X-Wing designs weren't exactly stolen from the Empire. In the comic that originally chronicled the acquisition of the X-Wing design , the Empire attempted to nationalize the company developing the X-Wings (basically a hostile government takeover) which resulted in several of their top technicians defecting with the designs and prototypes. Incidentally, I see this as another sign of Imperial arrogance being a factor in their defeat. In this case, they assumed that they could simply take what they wanted without consequences. Again, they were wrong, and the consequence in this case was arming their enemy with the most advanced starfighter to date (advanced relative to the Star Wars universe).

[sintar07]

As I'm sure you can see above, I know plenty about Star Wars, because I happen to be completely obsessed with SW as well as ST. We're all fans here :)

I just think the Federation would win.

[Catamount]

As I'm sure you can see above, I know plenty about Star Wars, because I happen to be completely obsessed with SW as well as ST. We're all fans here :)

I just think the Federation would win.

I'm actually quote fond of Star Wars myself. Force Unleashed aside (haven't gotten to it), I've played every game that's been released since X-Wing, which I played on a 386 "laptop" with trackball off of 5 floppy discs (and the damn screen had inverted black and white that I could never fix :(). I own the movies, I've seen the TV shows, including that really bad Ewok cartoon they had a number of years back (though I haven't gotten through all of Clone Wars yet). Hell, I even played Star Wars D20 for awhile with a couple friends. I am plenty knowledgeable and plenty fond of Star Wars.

I might attempt a constructive criticism here for Zyrious, the point of view that we're all a bunch of Star Trek fans just thrashing Star Wars is honestly too black and white. Most of us here are general sci-fi fans, and have a lot of love for both. I'm willing to grant Star Wars the advantages it deserves, including the numerical (though it's not as large as Mike Wong would make it sound). In fact, I generally agree with the assessment on http://www.st-v-sw.net/ that the Imperials would have approximately a 10 to 1 advantage over the United Federation of Planets. What I also can't ignore is that Star Wars is, in fact, technologically stagnant, and that a lot of their warfare from highly sub-luminal weaponry (which we see with the "lasers" (whatever you want to call them) in ground battles), to the fact that they use manually targeted turrets to hit ships with, and not very accurately I might add, is simply not sophisticated enough to affect fast moving ships at great distance. Trek on the other hand uses weapons which travel at C as well as FTL weaponry if you count torpedoes. Numbers become somewhat meaningless if you can't hit the enemy, and Trek ships are both fast and agile. As for their ability to hit targets, the Defiant wasn't even able to effectively avoid fire from old ball turret phasers on the Lakota, let alone more accurate, modern arrays.

I won't make absolute determinations as far as sub-light capabilities, even if Star Wars does visibly show acceleration that's barely in excess of what a modern fighter jet can achieve, just because both Wars and Trek have to be given some slack for VFX limitations as it would be hard for either to really show ships flying around at any significant fraction of C.

Power generation is also a bit of a grey area, since there seems to be contradiction in Wars between fusion and at least one claim that there is a cannon reference to "hyper matter", which I can't discount. However, it's an irrelavent point because whatever you want to call the stuff used to power warships, it also can't be denied that the visible firepower is in lower ranges than Trek. Take DS9 for instance, where a small fleet of 20 ships were going to completely destroy a planet including the mantle in a matter of a few hours. Yes, the Death Star did it in say, maybe 1/18,000th of the amount of time (assuming the 5 hour figure for the ST ships given in the Romulan projections, 1 second for Alderaan's destruction, and equal size between the planets). However, the first Death Star also has 155,420,483 times the volume of a Galaxy class (rounded to the nearest cubic meter). The Galaxy class is a good ship to measure because it's a good average between the Galor and D'Deridex classes that made up the fleet. That means that for a given volume, the Tal'Shiar/Obsidian Order fleet demonstrated more than 8600 times the firepower of the Death Star, which is made even worse for wars because the Death Star was little more than a reactor connected to a weapon with engines, which means that far more mass was no doubt dedicated to the purpose of firepower than what's seen on a typical ship. Now let's be very generous and assume that the Death Star only needed to emit 1/10 of its maximum firepower to do identical damage as what was projected for the ST fleet (as they didn't aim to destroy the core, and the Death Star can probably take out somewhat larger planets as well). That still means that a giant weapon with engines would still only have 1/860th of the firepower for a given volume of a typical large Star Trek ship (again, averaging the battleship sized D'Deridex with the cruiser sized Galor). All of this assumes, of course, that the Death Star's superlaser works with a DET phenomenon, and not the often-theorized "super laser effect", a nuclear phenomenon where the laser merely creates a chain reaction that breaks the bonds between the atoms in the planet (a theory based on the apparent lack of the Empire's ability to generate the energy needed to destroy a planet with fusion power). So we're being generous all around for the Empire, but it's not helping anything for them.

It should also be noted that many Starfleet cruisers have far more firepower for a given size than what's available to a D'Deridex or Galor class ship, especially with some of the newer cruisers. That puts things even more in favor of the UFP (assuming they ever get around to retiring those damn Excelsior class ships).

So, do I hate Star Wars? On the contrary, I'm a rather big fan. I admit I cared for the old movies more than ep 1,2 and 3, but even so I did spend the money on buying the first 3 (after already having 4,5 and 6). Do I think Star Wars races are capable of defeating Star Trek races in a war between the Empire (which has no friends) and the UFP (and friends)? The evidence seems quite clear to the contrary. Is my conclusion a product of pro-Trek bias from liking Trek more? You could make the claim, but it doesn't hold water as I spent a long time thinking this fight would go handily to the Empire. Many others feel similarly. So we're not Trek fans bashing Wars, merely sci-fi fans who have judged almost unanimously that the technological differences between Wars and Trek would put Trek on top in a conflict between the 2. I'm sure bias has to do with the opinions of some, but speaking strictly for myself it has nothing to do with my conclusions. Love or hate Wars/Trek I'll give victory to whoever would really win.

Finally, while you might be able to attribute a lot of the disadvantages in Wars to writing styles, the point is irrelavent. It just means that Wars creators wrote up a technologically inferior universe. That's not a reflection of the quality of the story, but that's not what I, or many others are here to measure. Merely the demonstrated capacity for war within the 2 universes. We'll have the Star Trek vs Star Wars STORY debate some other time in some other thread.

[adriancrouton]

1. Not the ship-killing beams. The second DS fired those within a couple minutes of each other

2a. The Empire does have a fair amount of combat experience, and at least some form of training (and if they're all still Kamino-style clones, they have pretty fair training regimens, at least by SW standards)

2b. Even inexperienced soldiers can be effective against trained and battle-hardened warriors if fielded in large enough numbers. The DS should have been able to deploy tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of TIE Fighters at Yavin and Endor each, a numerical advantage so great that a bare handful of Rebel fighter squadrons never should have even gotten close to the Death Star, let alone made multiple attack runs in groups of three at a time.

3. At Yavin, THEY surprised the Rebels, jumping in before the Alliance was ready. At Endor, they once again surprised the Rebels. As Paulo quoted Ackbar: "IT'S A TRAP!!!"

4. Not so much if you exclude most of Voyager. Everything else can be accounted for by just superior technology (and education of personnel and citizens) in general.

DANGIT!!! Ya know I'm guna settle this debate onece and for all with a game of "rock-paper-sizers-lizerd-spock or \\//." Best out of three.

Ready.3...2...1... Rock-paper-sizers-lizerd-spock! (all do spock) it's a tie.

Ok let's try that agean. 3... 2... 1... Rock-paper-sizers-lizerd-spock! (all do spock) It's a tie... agean.

Last time. 3... 2... 1... Rock-paper-sizers-lizerd-spock! (all do spock) Darn, the battle continues!

[starshipcaptain]

Wow alot of pages about this topic and they were origanily not even suppost to be related to each other.

So whats the tally so far

[Catamount]

Wow alot of pages about this topic and they were origanily not even suppost to be related to each other.

So whats the tally so far

Good question. It seems we spent about 10 pages getting the "tally", and then the next 105 pages disagreeing on it :p

[sintar07]

Take DS9 for instance, where a small fleet of 20 ships were going to completely destroy a planet including the mantle in a matter of a few hours.

I don't think I saw that one. Could you give me a link to a video of that scene? Or maybe to the Memory-Alpha page?

[Snapshot_9]

Good question. It seems we spent about 10 pages getting the "tally", and then the next 105 pages disagreeing on it :p

isnt that how most debates work? and politics?

you spend ages talking about something and then find out you cant remember were you started... or what happend up till now.

[Snapshot_9]

sorry for the double post...

but on the topic of weapon yields, i found this on memery alpha.

Isoton

* Kilana had her Jem'Hadar troops fire 10 isotons of explosives near a Jem'Hadar attack ship in which a team from Deep Space 9 was seeking shelter in 2373. (DS9: "The Ship")

* A photon torpedo explosion of 25 isotons could destroy an entire city within seconds. (VOY: "Living Witness")

* A 54 isoton yield gravimetric charge could blow up a small planet. (VOY: "The Omega Directive")

* An 80 isoton yield gravimetric torpedo was used by USS Voyager to destroy a harmonic resonance chamber containing approximately 144 million omega molecules (72% of approximately 200 million) in 2374. (VOY: "The Omega Directive")

* A bomb with 90 isotons of enriched ultritium had the explosion radius of 800 kilometers. Such a bomb was used to blow up a ketracel-white facility in Cardassian space in 2374. (DS9: "A Time to Stand")

* 200 isotons was the explosive yield of a photon torpedo with a class-6 warhead. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")

* A 5 million isoton explosion of a multi-kinetic neutronic mine could affect an entire star system. The shock wave had a dispersive force radius of 5 light years. (VOY: "Scorpion, Part II")

* A Malon export vessel, eleventh gradient could transport 90 million isotons of antimatter waste. (VOY: "Night")

* In the year 2375, the Malon civilization produced 6 billion isotons of antimatter waste as an industrial byproduct daily. (VOY: "Night")

* Another type of Malon export vessel could transport 4 trillion isotons of antimatter waste. (VOY: "Juggernaut")

[fireraven]

I don't think I saw that one. Could you give me a link to a video of that scene? Or maybe to the Memory-Alpha page?
Battle of Omarion Nebula (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Battle_of_the_Omarion_Nebula)

[Ilithi_Dragon]

And btw lith, though my time in the USAF was short,i can say with some confidence that the training required to make good soldiers and officers does not make one prone to rebellion and such attitudes. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Depends on your definition of 'good.' Military service requires discipline and the ability to follow orders with little or no forethought or consideration, because soldiers and junior officers questioning their commander's decisions, especially the snap decisions, on the battlefield can be disastrous, both because orders can often require immediate action, and because the soldier given the orders often doesn't have all the information available. HOWEVER, an obedient soldier is not always a COMPETENT or EFFECTIVE soldier. The battlefield is not set in stone, and things are constantly changing. Truly effective soldiers can adapt to changing circumstances on the battlefield, that can often invalidate precise plans made beforehand. The ability to recognize those changing factors, and to not only be capable of adapting quickly, competently and efficiently, but knowing when to adapt and when to follow orders to the letter, requires a certain level of intelligence and independence of thought that poses a threat to an oppressive regime that depends upon military control to maintain power, especially when present in military commanders. Imperial officers and personnel follow orders without question - disobedience is a quick way to an execution, so it doesn't matter if obeying an order will get you killed and result in failure of your mission. Starfleet officers and personnel follow orders with prim military discipline, but continue to 'question' their orders by evaluating their situation and the orders given, and they have the intelligence and independence of thought and action to not follow orders if it means getting the job done and saving lives, and have the intelligence and education to make that decision competently.

[adriancrouton]

Wall-e would totaly own ST!

I am so random! Is'nt it awsome!

[xlcr]

The only problem is the apples/oranges aspects of the comparison. I mean, sure, Star Wars is painted up to look like sci fi, but it's not really sci fi. Star Wars is fantasy. It's closer to Lord of the Rings than to Star Trek.

That would mean that Star Wars would totally own that confrontation. Trek can have all the technicological advances in the galaxy, but Star Wars has fate and magic. And really, there's no competing with that.

Agian, though, it's not really a good comparison. Any Star Wars/Star Trek similarities end on the surface.

[sintar07]

The only problem is the apples/oranges aspects of the comparison. I mean, sure, Star Wars is painted up to look like sci fi, but it's not really sci fi. Star Wars is fantasy. It's closer to Lord of the Rings than to Star Trek.

It's true that Star Wars is more a fantasy than a science fiction (in the movies anyway). But it also has a science fiction side that has been more heavily emphasized in recent years, what with the technical manuals and cutaway books, etc. I think, in light of that, that this is still a valid argument (if somewhat pointless) :)


That would mean that Star Wars would totally own that confrontation. Trek can have all the technicological advances in the galaxy, but Star Wars has fate and magic. And really, there's no competing with that.
Two things. One, we are, again, talking about the more technical side. We've brought up ships, weapons, and more recently human performance. Two, fate favors the goodguys over the badguys anyway, and we've mostly been talking about the Empire vs the Federation. We could talk about the Jedi, I suppose, but I can't think of any reason that they would fight the Federation...

[Sumoben]

Did anyone ever consider that the main weaponry that Star Wars uses, ex. Lasers, are completely ineffective due to a generalization of Picard saying that Lasers are ineffective against even their navigational deflector?..

Let alone the fact that the Q have that magical barrier around the Star Trek Universe.

[Catamount]

Did anyone ever consider that the main weaponry that Star Wars uses, ex. Lasers, are completely ineffective due to a generalization of Picard saying that Lasers are ineffective against even their navigational deflector?..

Let alone the fact that the Q have that magical barrier around the Star Trek Universe.

Actually, it's been discussed about 40 times, but that's fine, EVERY possible point has been discussed about 40 times already. :D

BTW Ilithi, looks like your thread is back again.

[Sumoben]

On another note, Species 8472 > Star Wars. =D

[sintar07]

On another note, Species 8472 > Star Wars. =D

Well, yes, but Species 8472 > everything, so that hardly counts. :D

[LordEnn]

Untamed bias ruins such debates. There's little left to discuss.

Star Wars is painted up to look like sci fi, but it's not really sci fi. Star Wars is fantasy. It's closer to Lord of the Rings than to Star Trek.

No, it isn't.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

Untamed bias ruins such debates. There's little left to discuss.

Bias can be a funny thing, and often runs both ways. } ; = 8 )



No, it isn't.

Actually, it is. Even Lucas has acknowledged that SW is a fantasy in a Sci-Fi setting, instead of true Science Fiction. The story and saga of SW would work just as well in a setting similar to Middle Earth as it would in the technological setting it exists in.

[Versac]

Bias can be a funny thing, and often runs both ways. } ; = 8 )





Actually, it is. Even Lucas has acknowledged that SW is a fantasy in a Sci-Fi setting, instead of true Science Fiction. The story and saga of SW would work just as well in a setting similar to Middle Earth as it would in the technological setting it exists in.
I think that this is the main problem between any form of direct comparison. Star Wars has always taken a 'story first' stance, and worries about technical solutions later. Heck, just run some basic numbers on the required power output of the Superlaser on the Death Star and you'll see that a large portion of it must be converted to pure energy with each shot. The FTL system in Star Wars essentially boils down to technology-regulated magic black boxes, and that's with the EU explanation. Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that Star Wars doesn't pause to check to see if what it does is possible, it just does it. It's still awesome, but it discards the crucial half of the Science Fiction genre.

Star Trek on the other hand, has always been more consistent (since TNG, but my issues with TOS are for another time). Of course there are going to be some mistakes, but that's what you get with 20+ seasons of material. Star Trek fairly cleanly lays out what laws of physics it discards - conservation of energy is heavily bent, subspace exists, transporters are a fickle form of magic, etc., but it adheres to those limitations fairly closely. It has been deviating more so that usual recently, but all the numbers still add up fairly well.

In essence, the very fact that Star Trek takes place in this galaxy in a possible future while Star Wars is in an entirely different section of the universe tells the viewer that Trek is going to be fairly serious about following the rules, while Wars is going to tell a great story, and if the laws of physics won't shut up then they can go sit in the corner and cry. Comparing the two is the task of forming some workable conversion, which is going to have enough exceptions to 'level the playing field' that the two are pretty certain to be brought to the same level, out of simple fairness, which defeats the entire point of the exercise.

[LordEnn]

Actually, it is. Even Lucas has acknowledged that SW is a fantasy in a Sci-Fi setting, instead of true Science Fiction. The story and saga of SW would work just as well in a setting similar to Middle Earth as it would in the technological setting it exists in.

Lucas stated that, with several alterations, the main story was capable of functioning in a fantastical setting. Its fundamental structural principles, however, would collapse without its scientific basis. Its validity as scientific fiction is indisputable.

Bias can be a funny thing, and often runs both ways. } ; = 8 )

:p

[LordEnn]

The FTL system in Star Wars essentially boils down to technology-regulated magic black boxes...

Actually, it's exceptionally complicated. Technically, the activation of a hyperdrive propulsion system involves dozens of complex processes. It's unrealistic, of course, but it's far from simple.


...and that's with the EU explanation.

Although it's tertiary canon, extraction of technical data from much of the expansionary material is permitted by Lucasfilm. Ilithi simply wished to exclude it from this debate, which is why people have done so.

It's still awesome, but it discards the crucial half of the Science Fiction genre.

Star Wars does nothing of the sort. In fact, its avoidance of excessively using extraordinarily idiotic impossibilities makes it seem realistic when compared to Star Trek.

Star Trek on the other hand, has always been more consistent (since TNG, but my issues with TOS are for another time). Of course there are going to be some mistakes, but that's what you get with 20+ seasons of material. Star Trek fairly cleanly lays out what laws of physics it discards - conservation of energy is heavily bent, subspace exists, transporters are a fickle form of magic, etc., but it adheres to those limitations fairly closely. It has been deviating more so that usual recently, but all the numbers still add up fairly well.

The vast majority of scientific explanations in Star Trek are ridiculous. The degree to which it mutilates even the most basic facts and concepts of physics, for example, is unbelievable. It is one of the most unrealistic entities of scientific fiction in existence, and claims to the contrary are based solely on its being in our galaxy.

Similarly, its adherence to its own fact seems mediocre. As well as constantly inventing solutions that defy real science, it creates a spectrum of fictitious science that often contradicts itself. If this wasn't as laughable as it is, it would be fine. If Star Wars is fantastical, Star Trek is mythical.

In essence, the very fact that Star Trek takes place in this galaxy in a possible future while Star Wars is in an entirely different section of the universe tells the viewer that Trek is going to be fairly serious about following the rules...

It does no such thing. They're both unrealistic, but Star Trek is incredible in its ignorance and elimination of reality. It follows very few rules. The fact that Star Trek is set in our galaxy doesn't determine its level of realism.

... Star Trek takes place in this galaxy in a possible future...

I highly doubt it. :p

[adriancrouton]

Never under-estamate the power of the force.

I don't trust wiki with ST and SW tec. why not just go to StarWars.com or Startrek.com for tec info?



I like the name Sleverdogindrgindogin:D

[Versac]

Actually, it's exceptionally complicated. Technically, the activation of a hyperdrive propulsion system involves dozens of complex processes. It's unrealistic, of course, but it's far from simple.




Although it's tertiary canon, extraction of technical data from much of the expansionary material is permitted by Lucasfilm. Ilithi simply wished to exclude it from this debate, which is why people have done so.



Star Wars does nothing of the sort. In fact, its avoidance of excessively using extraordinarily idiotic impossibilities makes it seem realistic when compared to Star Trek.



The vast majority of scientific explanations in Star Trek are ridiculous. The degree to which it mutilates even the most basic facts and concepts of physics, for example, is unbelievable. It is one of the most unrealistic entities of scientific fiction in existence, and claims to the contrary are based solely on its being in our galaxy.

Similarly, its adherence to its own fact seems mediocre. As well as constantly inventing solutions that defy real science, it creates a spectrum of fictitious science that often contradicts itself. If this wasn't as laughable as it is, it would be fine. If Star Wars is fantastical, Star Trek is mythical.



It does no such thing. They're both unrealistic, but Star Trek is incredible in its ignorance and elimination of reality. It follows very few rules. The fact that Star Trek is set in our galaxy doesn't determine its level of realism.



I highly doubt it. :p
As for the details of hyperdrive mechanics that the explanation last I checked is that it is originally Rakatan technology that was dark-side based, but that Corellian engineers managed to find a way to modify it to both run on more conventional power sources and not require force-saturated destinations without actually figuring out the details on why the things work - an example of the practical advances overtaking the theoretical. That's not unheard of in science, but it is becoming increasingly rare with higher technology. The point is that a specific mechanism of FTL is not provided, underscoring the supremacy of story over the gritty details.

As for your other comments, I'm afraid I cannot make a meaningful reply unless you provide specifics. Star Wars has 13 hours of canon to remember compared to Trek's 545, so I'm going to have to ask you to cite your sources a little better as far as Star Trek goes.

[sintar07]

The FTL system in Star Wars essentially boils down to technology regulated black boxes...Actually, it's exceptionally complicated. Technically, the activation of a hyperdrive propulsion system involves dozens of complex processes. It's unrealistic, of course, but it's far from simple.

...and that's with the EU explanation.


Although it's tertiary canon, extraction of technical data from much of the expansionary material is permitted by Lucasfilm. Ilithi simply wished to exclude it from this debate, which is why people have done so.

It's still awesome, but it discards the crucial half of the Science Fiction genre.

Star Wars does nothing of the sort. In fact, its avoidance of excessively using extraordinarily idiotic impossibilities makes it seem realistic when compared to Star Trek.

Star Trek on the other hand, has always been more consistent (since TNG, but my issues with TOS are for another time). Of course there are going to be some mistakes, but that's what you get with 20+ seasons of material. Star Trek fairly cleanly lays out what laws of physics it discards - conservation of energy is heavily bent, subspace exists, transporters are a fickle form of magic, etc., but it adheres to those limitations fairly closely. It has been deviating more so that usual recently, but all the numbers still add up fairly well.

The vast majority of scientific explanations in Star Trek are ridiculous. The degree to which it mutilates even the most basic facts and concepts of physics, for example, is unbelievable. It is one of the most unrealistic entities of scientific fiction in existence, and claims to the contrary are based solely on its being in our galaxy.

Similarly, its adherence to its own fact seems mediocre. As well as constantly inventing solutions that defy real science, it creates a spectrum of fictitious science that often contradicts itself. If this wasn't as laughable as it is, it would be fine. If Star Wars is fantastical, Star Trek is mythical.

In essence, the very fact that Star Trek takes place in this galaxy in a possible future while Star Wars is in an entirely different section of the universe tells the viewer that Trek is going to be fairly serious about following the rules...

It does no such thing. They're both unrealistic, but Star Trek is incredible in its ignorance and elimination of reality. It follows very few rules. The fact that Star Trek is set in our galaxy doesn't determine its level of realism.

... Star Trek takes place in this galaxy in a possible future...

I highly doubt it. :p

Aren't you the guy who was just whining about bias in debates? You just:

-1. Disregarded a legitimate point criticizing Star Wars with no evidence whatsoever
-2. Suggested that the argument unfairly favored Star Trek by excluding Star Wars' "tertiary canon," despite that fact that the same rules apply to Star Trek's.
-3. Called Star Trek some form of stupid seven different times in excessively strong language ("extraordinarily idiotic," for example)

You seem incredibly biased to me. And rude to boot.The rest of us are just trying to have a friendly discussion here. What are you trying to do?

[sintar07]

As for the details of hyperdrive mechanics that the explanation last I checked is that it is originally Rakatan technology that was dark-side based, but that Corellian engineers managed to find a way to modify it to both run on more conventional power sources and not require force-saturated destinations without actually figuring out the details on why the things work - an example of the practical advances overtaking the theoretical.

Actually, I am pretty sure that the inhabitants of the Star Wars galaxy know how the hyperdrive works. I think this is shown by the fact that people like Han Solo commonly find ways to upgrade it. However, it's never explained to the audience in any way, or in any of the books. Warp drive, on the other hand, is explained. So I wouldn't say that the hyperdrive is a black box inside of Star Wars, but it is to the audience.

[Versac]

Actually, I am pretty sure that the inhabitants of the Star Wars galaxy know how the hyperdrive works. I think this is shown by the fact that people like Han Solo commonly find ways to upgrade it. However, it's never explained to the audience in any way, or in any of the books. Warp drive, on the other hand, is explained. So I wouldn't say that the hyperdrive is a black box inside of Star Wars, but it is to the audience.
Fair enough. Although, Wookiepedia at the very least seems to have developed an explanation since last I acquainted myself with the details. Apparently a fusion generator or antimatter reactor is used to build up an energy pulse to blast the ship into hyperspace, with a null quantum field generator holding the ship there until it arrives at its destination and a stasis field to negate the nasty effects on the travelers.

Wait, how has warp drive worked for the past few decades?

[Catamount]

You know Lordenn, Star Trek has is far from scientifically accurate just by its very nature, but claiming it's the most "unrealistic science fiction entity in existence" is just a tad bit silly (the Mike Wong sort of silly). It's true that both Voyager and Enterprise just threw science and consistency to the wind between Voyager's deus ex machina plots and Enterprises... well whatever you call the complete lack of concern for quality of any sort by the producers (which somehow didn't stop it from being an alright show). Still, while no science fiction can be particularly consistent with science, Star Trek has historically done a fairly good job of at least being consistent with itself. Technological principles underlying what Star Trek does (whether real of imagined) are adhered to, and a surprising amount of consideration is given just to overall accuracy (or again, was before B&B had their way with Trek).

It seem Sintar07 and Ilithi really are right. Bias works two ways, and you do a great job of showing that.

[sintar07]

Wait, how has warp drive worked for the past few decades?
The ship uses exotic particles and a matter-antimatter reactor to contort (warp) the space around it. Using this method, they can contract the space in front of them and extend the space behind them. To anyone outside of the ship (in unwarped space), this makes the ship appear to stretch out and move at faster than light speeds. In reality, the ship is only moving at high impulse, but because the space around it is "warped," it covers distance much faster. This also conveniently solves the problem of high speed time distortion.

[Versac]

The ship uses exotic particles and a matter-antimatter reactor to contort (warp) the space around it. Using this method, they can contract the space in front of them and extend the space behind them. To anyone outside of the ship (in unwarped space), this makes the ship appear to stretch out and move at faster than light speeds. In reality, the ship is only moving at high impulse, but because the space around it is "warped," it covers distance much faster. This also conveniently solves the problem of high speed time distortion.
That was somewhat rhetorical, but replace hyper- with sub-, quantum null with warp, and field with bubble. An interesting pattern emerges.

[sintar07]

That was somewhat rhetorical, but replace hyper- with sub-, quantum null with warp, and field with bubble. An interesting pattern emerges.

I was given to believe that the hyperdrive either:

A. somehow moved the ship into a sub dimension that intersected real space at different points.
or
B. literally moved the ship through real space faster than the speed of light.

The second one is impossible according to modern science. The subspace dimension theory is a good one, but I don't think it's the same as the warped space theory.

[Sumoben]

The ship uses exotic particles and a matter-antimatter reactor to contort (warp) the space around it. Using this method, they can contract the space in front of them and extend the space behind them. To anyone outside of the ship (in unwarped space), this makes the ship appear to stretch out and move at faster than light speeds. In reality, the ship is only moving at high impulse, but because the space around it is "warped," it covers distance much faster. This also conveniently solves the problem of high speed time distortion.

Not exactly exotic, Deuterium, is composed of hydrogen, and its not high impulse, since impulse was sublight speeds. And the space around the Warp bubble isn't warped, it creates a subspace field that encases the ship.

[LordEnn]

Aren't you the guy who was just whining about bias in debates?

Yes.


You just:

-1. Disregarded a legitimate point criticizing Star Wars with no evidence whatsoever

No, I didn't. I stopped debating approximately two months ago.

-2. Suggested that the argument unfairly favored Star Trek by excluding Star Wars' "tertiary canon," despite that fact that the same rules apply to Star Trek's.

No, I didn't. As soon as Ilithi reminded me that he doesn't wish for expansionary material to be used, I stopped drawing information from it.

-3. Called Star Trek some form of stupid seven different times in excessively strong language ("extraordinarily idiotic," for example)

No, I didn't. I said that many of its scientific explanations (in my opinion) are extraordinarily idiotic, but I never even implied that Star Trek, in itself, was. Acquaint yourself with my statements properly.

You seem incredibly biased to me.

My bias isn't severe enough to disrupt this debate. Your tendency to overreact isn't my concern.

And rude to boot.The rest of us are just trying to have a friendly discussion here. What are you trying to do?

A genuine dislike for Star Trek's shortcomings and errors is rudeness? Of course. Mike Wong is one extreme. Are you the other?

[Sumoben]

That was somewhat rhetorical, but replace hyper- with sub-, quantum null with warp, and field with bubble. An interesting pattern emerges.

Well no, since Hyperspace was more of a wormhole while Warp field bubbles were still in normal space, but inside a subspace bubble.

[sintar07]

Not exactly exotic, Deuterium, is composed of hydrogen, and its not high impulse, since impulse was sublight speeds. And the space around the Warp bubble isn't warped, it creates a subspace field that encases the ship.

Okay, I completely forgot about the subspace field.:o

So do you know why it's important? Because I know it's always referenced in the show, and I know that it's an integral part of the warp system, but why do they need it?

[Sumoben]

Okay, I completely forgot about the subspace field.:o

So do you know why it's important? Because I know it's always referenced in the show, and I know that it's an integral part of the warp system, but why do they need it?

Well the "science" behind it is that it shortens the space in front of the ship and expands it behind the ship, in essence making them travel faster.

[LordEnn]

You know Lordenn, Star Trek has is far from scientifically accurate just by its very nature, but claiming it's the most "unrealistic science fiction entity in existence" is just a tad bit silly (the Mike Wong sort of silly).

It's one of the most scientifically unrealistic.

... Mike Wong...

Mike Wong lost much of his credibility when he started using inflated figures. I can assure you that I don't preach stories about 200-gigaton turbolaser shots.

It's true that both Voyager and Enterprise just threw science and consistency to the wind between Voyager's deus ex machina plots and Enterprises... well whatever you call the complete lack of concern for quality of any sort by the producers (which somehow didn't stop it from being an alright show). Still, while no science fiction can be particularly consistent with science, Star Trek has historically done a fairly good job of at least being consistent with itself. Technological principles underlying what Star Trek does (whether real of imagined) are adhered to, and a surprising amount of consideration is given just to overall accuracy (or again, was before B&B had their way with Trek).

In itself, Star Trek is terrific. I was comparing its scientific accuracy and realism with similar franchises. When followers of Star Trek declare that Star Wars is fantastical, I can't resist the urge to laugh.

It seem Sintar07 and Ilithi really are right. Bias works two ways, and you do a great job of showing that.

Did you know that Emperor Palpatine can swallow galaxies? :rolleyes:

[Sumoben]

Did you know that Emperor Palpatine can swallow galaxies? :rolleyes:

Did you know that the Q could snap their fingers and create or destroy a galaxy in a matter of nanoseconds? :D

[LordEnn]

Did you know that the Q could snap their fingers and create or destroy a galaxy in a matter of nanoseconds? :D

Did you know that Darth Vader was, in fact, Romulan?

:p

Nothing could possibly defeat the Q. That's a sad truth I must face. :p

[voyagerexplorer111]

Well basicially Q you are stuffed and prophets (DS9) still going to be stopped and changlings can take out jedi easily. With the sovereign class ships they would win in space battles.

[sintar07]

Well the "science" behind it is that it shortens the space in front of the ship and expands it behind the ship, in essence making them travel faster.

So basically, they hold the exotic particles?

[Sumoben]

So basically, they hold the exotic particles?

Technically there are no "exotic" particles involved, subspace is as Geordi once explained it as...
"like a honey comb with an infinite number of cells, each cell another universe."

In essence, its a layer of space that interconnects any and every universe, but crossing the threshold into another universe is highly unlikely.

[Catamount]

Well here's the deal with Jedi. The common argument against citing Q is that he probably would never fight for the Federation in any war, including one with the Empire. What's often forgotten is that works both ways. This conversation seems to assume that the nature of this conflict would be a battle between the Imperials and a coalition of the Federation and their allies. The Empire was born out of a mass murder of Jedi, and I can absolutely assure you that the Jedi would NEVER fight for the Empire. They would be more likely to seek asylum within the Federation and fight for them, but as that would give a Wars advantage to Trek, I think it's only fair to discount that possibility and simply say that Vader aside, force sensitives would not take part in this conflict on EITHER side. The moment you give their powers to the Empire, you have to give Q to the Federation.

The prophets would most certainly fight for the Federation if given the chance (just say it concerns the safety of Bajor), however that may be beyond their capabilities. If something enters their wormhole they can easily destroy it, and they have shown a limited ability to have influence outside of that wormhole, but we don't know the extent of their ability to interact with our plane of existence.

It's one of the most unrealistic.

Again, I make no apologies for Trek when not deserved, but I fail to see what this claim is based on. Star Wars claims that microscopic organisms give people the ability to everything from fly, to levitate objects the size of small buildings, to manipulate cosmic forces (and with Force Unleashed, it's beginning to get out of hand quite frankly). Do we criticize them for it? Of course not (previous commend aside). We always cut slack for fantasies and science fictions because they make an attempt to display the impossible while trying to keep it plausible, which is an intrinsically difficult task. Where *I* criticize such fictions is when they stop caring about plausibility, which has become a problem within Trek post-Roddenberry (though DS9 didn't do too bad). Of course, ever since Lucas decided to make Episode 1, Wars has had it's own problems with story writing. I wonder if bringing Harrison Ford back would inject enough awesome back into Wars to fix it...


Mike Wong lost much of his credibility when he started using inflated figures. I can assure you that I don't preach stories about 200-gigaton turbolaser shots.

Mike Wong lost his credibility when he opened his mouth (figuratively) and everyone realized that one could make an entire college course in logical fallacy out of every single sentence he utters. Believe me, NO ONE anywhere displays his level of extremism in these debates, but not to worry. Wars may be advocated by the most laughable individual, but Lucas never asked for his input, so it's not a fault of Wars, it's a fault of Mike Wong and nothing more.


Did you know that Emperor Palpatine can swallow galaxies :rolleyes:?

You know... I always suspected...

[sintar07]

Technically there are no "exotic" particles involved, subspace is as Geordi once explained it as...
"like a honey comb with an infinite number of cells, each cell another universe."

In essence, its a layer of space that interconnects any and every universe, but crossing the threshold into another universe is highly unlikely.

Ooh... I'm really sorry. I just went back and checked my info and it appears that I mixed up real theory with Trek theory. The exotic particles are part of the real theory of space distortion. The subspace field, as far as I can tell, simply fills the role of said particles in Trek theory.

Again, sorry for taking up time being confusing :o

[Sumoben]

Ooh... I'm really sorry. I just went back and checked my info and it appears that I mixed up real theory with Trek theory. The exotic particles are part of the real theory of space distortion. The subspace field, as far as I can tell, simply fills the role of said particles in Trek theory.

Again, sorry for taking up time being confusing :o

Thats alright, like it says in my siggy, I have nothing better to do =D

[LordEnn]

Well here's the deal with Jedi. The common argument against citing Q is that he probably would never fight for the Federation in any way, including one with the Empire. What's often forgotten is that works both ways. This conversation seems to assume that the nature of this conflict would be a battle between the Imperials and a coalition of the Federation and their allies. The Empire was born out of a mass murder of Jedi, and I can absolutely assure you that the Jedi would NEVER fight for the Empire. They would be more likely to seek asylum within the Federation and fight for them, but as that would give a Wars advantage to Trek, I think it's only fair to discount that possibility and simply say that Vader aside, force sensitives would not take part in this conflict on EITHER side. The moment you give their powers to the Empire, you have to give Q to the Federation.

That argument possesses two critical flaws, both of which are puzzling. The assumption that Q wouldn't be battling for the United Federation of Planets isn't entirely correct. Although I'm a far more loyal follower of Star Wars than I am of Star Trek, I admit that, whichever stance you presume to take, Q would be likely to assist the Federation, even if he doesn't provide direct force. Considering the fact that the Galactic Empire would be intruding on Q's area of entertainment (our galaxy), he'd be considerably likelier to help in a struggle against them than to sit and watch such a war.

On the other hand, the Q rarely interfere. If I was Mike Wong, I wouldn't attempt to fabricate explanations for Q's involvement, or lack of it, in a conflict between the Federation and the Galactic Empire. I'd simply forget him. He's a terrible idea. I dislike magical beings that shrink stars and displace galaxies.

The moment you give their powers to the Empire, you have to give Q to the Federation.

The simultaneous underestimation and overestimation of the Jedi Order is, quite frankly, completely unreasonable. While Jedi are infinitely more capable than most followers of Star Trek prefer to acknowledge, they aren't divine. The presence of the Jedi in a debate like this wouldn't merit the inclusion of Q. The Q, like much of Star Trek, are incredibly exaggerated. No mortal, no matter how powerful, can rival the Q. Attempting to include them in heated debates is a sign of defeat.

Again, I make no apologies for Trek when not deserved, but I fail to see what this claim is based on. Star Wars claims that microscopic organisms give people the ability to everything from fly, to levitate objects the size of small buildings, to manipulate cosmic forces (and with Force Unleashed, it's beginning to get out of hand quite frankly). Do we criticize them for it? Of course not (previous commend aside). We always cut slack for fantasies and science fictions because they make an attempt to display the impossible while trying to keep it plausible, which is an intrinsically difficult task.

The Force is a pervasive energy field. Midi-chlorians are intelligent organisms that live symbiotically within all living cells. When there is a sufficient amount of them, they may allow their symbiont to detect and directly utilize the Force. That's how Force-sensitives physically manipulate the energy field. For all of its unrealistic elements, it's far more plausible than the Q.

...and with Force Unleashed, it's beginning to get out of hand quite frankly).

Some of the earliest expansionary material told stories of Jedi that could shatter continents, or Sith that could consume planets. It's quite fascinating.

:p

Where *I* criticize such fictions is when they stop caring about plausibility, which has become a problem within Trek post-Roddenberry (though DS9 didn't do too bad). Of course, ever since Lucas decided to make Episode 1, Wars has had it's own problems with story writing. I wonder if bringing Harrison Ford back would inject enough awesome back into Wars to fix it...

The first two prequels were decent, and the third one was great. :p Star Wars isn't better because it's entirely plausible, but it avoids widely employing radical impossibilities in all of its aspects.

I apologize for any grammatical errors I make. I tire quickly. :p

[Catamount]

You misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that the inclusion of the Jedi warrant the inclusion of Q because the Jedi are equal to Q in any sense. They aren't. What I said (though apparently didn't convey very effectively) is that if we're going to grant the Empire a force that would never actually intervene on their behalf, then the same must be done for the UFP. It doesn't matter how powerful these forces are, that's not the point.

The Force is a pervasive energy field. Midi-chlorians are intelligent organisms that live symbiotically within all living cells. When there is a sufficient amount of them, they allow their symbiont to detect and directly utilize the Force. That's how Force-sensitives physically manipulate the energy field. For all of its unrealistic elements, it's far more plausible than the Q.


It sounds to me like the same incoherent babble that you accuse (sometimes rightfully) Trek of using to explain their technology. How? How do microscopic organisms enable the utilization of this energy field to perform tasks that would require the expenditure of enormous quantities of energy (at least relative to what biological organisms possess). That doesn't sound plausible at all. It isn't plausible, not even more than the Q. Okay, so these microscopic organisms don't in themselves exert enough energy to levitate objects the size of small buildings, they simple manipulate such high quantities of energy? Please, explain how a microscopic organism does this. Explained magic is worse than just asking people to accept the story, not better.

The force was far easier to swallow before they tried to explain it, please don't pass off this sorry attempt at an explanation of the impossible as science or even an attempt at plausibility. It's the same nonsense you accuse Trek of, only it's actually worse in a lot of ways.

At least we don't attempt to explain the Q.

Star Wars isn't better because it's entirely plausible, but it avoids widely employing radical impossibilities in all of its aspects, as Star Trek does.

You mean like magical microscopic organisms that manipulate mystical energy fields? You mean like beams of energy that stop in mid air and have no apparent containing force as that force would come between the "blade" and what it's cutting, a beam that somehow magically deflects other beams? You mean being able to build computers so advanced that they achieve sentience, but not being able to replace manually targeted anti-ship turrets with those computers? You mean taking a submarine through a planet's core?! You mean being able to shield an entire death star from a facility on a planet so small, that a few hand-held charges took it out, but not being able to equip a death star with one? Keep in mind this is on a craft with such high power generation, that it vaporizes planets, but it can't shield itself? You mean like Obi Wan Kenobi getting hit by a lightsaber and vanishing? Must be more of those magical microscopic organisms. So Q is implausible, but Obi Wan's magical transformation is not? Maybe while you're at it, you'd like to explain why Yoda and Obi Wan magically disappear while every other Jedi we see killed (even the almighty Anakin after being "saved") just gets to sit there and rot.

You said that your bias wasn't severe enough to disrupt this conversation. That may be true, but it can invalidate your opinion. Star Wars is just as implausible as Star Trek.

[LordEnn]

The assumption that Q wouldn't be battling for the United Federation of Planets isn't entirely correct.

That's what I meant to say. :o

You misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that the inclusion of the Jedi warrant the inclusion of Q because the Jedi are equal to Q in any sense. They aren't. What I said (though apparently didn't convey very effectively) is that if we're going to grant the Empire a force that would never actually intervene on their behalf, then the same must be done for the UFP. It doesn't matter how powerful these forces are, that's not the point.

I apologize. :p

[The remainder of your post.]

Star Trek is scientific fiction because it's fictitious. Star Wars is scientific fiction because it's fictitious. As I've said twice before, I was discussing all of that comparatively. It was my reply to certain people calling Star Wars fantastical, and announcing that Star Trek is closer to reality. Just as Star Wars contains vast amounts of unrealistic, fake science, Star Trek contains vast amounts of unrealistic, fake science.

I wasn't saying that Star Wars is far more realistic than Star Trek. I was saying that to declare one of them fantastical is to declare the other fantastical. Do you understand now?

At least we don't attempt to explain the Q.

You should. That's the entire point. At the very least, the Force possesses a quasi-scientific explanation. Is there any actual explanation for the Q?

[Sumoben]

Though, in the eyes of the general public, Star Trek is much more plausible than Star Wars is, other than perhaps ship design.

[LordEnn]

Though, in the eyes of the general public, Star Trek is much more plausible than Star Wars is, other than perhaps ship design.

That's because it's based in our galaxy. For some reason, that automatically adds realism to the franchise.

[Catamount]

Star Trek is scientific fiction because it's fictitious. Star Wars is scientific fiction because it's fictitious. As I've said twice before, I was discussing all of that comparatively. It was my reply to certain people calling Star Wars fantastical, and announcing that Star Trek is closer to reality. Just as Star Wars contains vast amounts of unrealistic, fake science, Star Trek contains vast amounts of unrealistic, fake science.

I wasn't saying that Star Wars is far more realistic than Star Trek. I was saying that to declare one of them fantastical is to declare the other fantastical. Do you understand now?

No, that's not what you said. You singled out Star Trek, and called its scientific explanation "extraordinarily idiotic" (italics mine). You then went on to say "The degree to which it mutilates even the most basic facts and concepts of physics, for example, is unbelievable. It is one of the most unrealistic entities of scientific fiction in existence..."

You were absolutely saying Star Wars was more plausible than Star Trek, and then taking it a step further and saying Star Trek was among the worst science fictions for realism.

You should. That's the entire point. At the very least, the Force possesses a quasi-scientific explanation. Is there any actual explanation for the Q?

Okay, I have an explanation for you. You see, they Q have within them these mysterious little micro-organisms that allow the manipulation of a mystical energy field, thereby giving them the ability to do anything. Since mysterious microorganisms and mystical energy fields can apparently excuse and explain everything from levitating space ships out of swamps to disappearing into thin air, there's no stretch at all in plausibility in explaining the Q with them. :rolleyes:

Even as you claim not to have a double standard, you make yours incredibly obvious. I seriously don't know why you ever left this thread, I need a good source of giggles every so often. :p

[Sumoben]

The Q are omnipotent, they were created even before the universe, they are, in essence, gods.

[Versac]

As for the Q issue, a little bit of backstory in the Q Continuum trilogy shows that Q's only prevailing task is to ensure the safety of humanity (technically Earthlings in general, some business about atoning for sending an asteroid on the wrong trajectory). While he thus would have far more of a reason to intervene than the Continuum in general, I agree that including Q would just be silly.

My take on Warp Drive is that the nacelles are used to partially push the ship into subspace, a universe coexisting with our own where not all of the laws of physics apply. Most notable is the light speed limit - this is also why sensors work over lightyears, and why a subspace shockwave or black hole is a very bad thing.

If we're talking the Galactic Empire as of Palpatine, what Jedi are we talking about? There aren't terribly many left by Episode IV.

[Catamount]

The Q are omnipotent, they were created even before the universe, they are, in essence, gods.

Actually, that isn't the case. It was directly stated that they evolved to their present forms, which is why they have such high expectations for humanity.

Also, it's worth taking this opportunity to point out the Stargate has beings nearly identical in ability to the Q, again making the assertion that Star Trek is extraordinarily implausible a ridiculous one.

[Sumoben]

Actually, that isn't the case. It was directly stated that they evolved to their present forms, which is why they have such high expectations for humanity.

Also, it's worth taking this opportunity to point out the Stargate has beings nearly identical in ability to the Q, again making the assertion that Star Trek is extraordinarily implausible a ridiculous one.

I don't remember that being stated, but ill try to look it up.


In Stargate however, they had to actually manipulate human beings to do their bidding however (in terms of the Ori) , while the Q can just snap their fingers and make things happen.

[Catamount]

I don't remember that being stated, but ill try to look it up.


In Stargate however, they had to actually manipulate human beings to do their bidding however (in terms of the Ori) , while the Q can just snap their fingers and make things happen.

Actually, while I thought it was, I can't find a reference either, however what was directly stated in Voy Death Wish is that the Q are not all powerful, merely advanced to a degree that makes them seem so.

[Sumoben]

Actually, while I thought it was, I can't find a reference either, however what was directly stated in Voy Death Wish is that the Q are not all powerful, merely advanced to a degree that makes them seem so.

They are all powerful, however to the point where they do not have complete power over themselves as an individual, however as a whole, The Q can strip another Q of its powers, as seen in TNG and I believe in Voyager as well. However in the case of Voyager, I think they were just looking for something interesting to throw in the mix, however what was on the show is Canon, I cannot argue with it.

[LordEnn]

Yes, I did. I called the scientific explanations in Star Trek idiotic, unrealistic, and implausible. Why would I say that? The answer to that question seems simple. While Star Wars is just as unrealistic, nobody walks around saying that it's closer to reality than Star Trek. Why not? The entire point was a reply to people who think that Star Trek is closer to reality. Do you understand?

For example, hyperdrive propulsion systems are unrealistic, but so are transporters. Do you understand? The entire purpose was to emphasize that Star Trek isn't more realistic than Star Wars. The entire purpose was to show that to call one fantastical is to call the other fantastical. I didn't call Star Trek ridiculous, unrealistic, and idiotic in comparison to Star Wars. I called Star Trek ridiculous, unrealistic, and idiotic in comparison to reality because some people seem to think that Star Trek is realistic. That's as simple as I can make it.

I only compared Star Trek and Star Wars in terms of realism with my examples of the Force to the Q, and that was for their quasi-scientific nature. Should I elaborate further?

[Sumoben]

Yes, I did. I called the scientific explanations in Star Trek idiotic, unrealistic, and implausible. Why would I say that? The answer to that question seems simple. While Star Wars is just as unrealistic, nobody walks around saying that it's closer to reality than Star Trek. Why not? The entire point was a reply to people who think that Star Trek is closer to reality. Do you understand?

For example, hyperdrive propulsion systems are unrealistic, but so are transporters. Do you understand? The entire purpose was to emphasize that Star Trek isn't more realistic than Star Wars. The entire purpose was to show that to call one fantastical is to call the other fantastical. I didn't call Star Trek ridiculous, unrealistic, and idiotic in comparison to Star Wars. I called Star Trek ridiculous, unrealistic, and idiotic in comparison to reality because some people seem to think that Star Trek is realistic. That's as simple as I can make it.

I only compared Star Trek and Star Wars in terms of realism was my comparison of the Force to the Q, and that was for its quasi-scientific nature. Do you understand?

Did you know that Star Trek writers and producers consult NASA and other R&D organizations for the basis of almost everything they write into the series and or films? I highly doubt you can say the same for Star Wars.

[LordEnn]

Did you know that, despite all of that, the majority of Star Trek's lore is unrealistic (impossible in reality)? Also, did you know that Rick Berman complained several times about the producers' ignorance of basic scientific plausibility in many episodes of Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? He wanted only the basics to be realistic, and only on a small number of important episodes, but the producers ignored him. That sounds great.

[Sumoben]

Did you know that, despite all of that, the majority of Star Trek's lore is unrealistic (impossible in reality)? Also, did you know that Rick Berman complained several times about the producers' ignorance of basic scientific plausibility in many episodes of Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? He wanted only the basics to be realistic, and only on a small number of important episodes, but the producers ignored him. That sounds great.

That may be so, but at least the staff of Star Trek did some research into the possibility of the basis of the majority of its major technologies have a possibility of becoming reality.

[LordEnn]

That may be so, but at least the staff of Star Trek did some research into the possibility of the basis of the majority of its major technologies have a possibility of becoming reality.

No, they didn't. Rick Sternback was interested in making it realistic, but the produces refused. That's why there were complaints. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about how technology in Star Trek applies to real physics. He found that virtually none of it is possible. Furthermore, transporters and the propulsion systems in Star Trek have been declared completely implausible by Krauss and his qualified reviewers (mainly physicists). I'm sure that hyperdrive technology is just as implausible, but I don't walk around claiming otherwise.

[Sumoben]

No, they didn't. Rick Sternback was interested in making it realistic, but the produces refused. That's why there were complaints. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about how technology in Star Trek applies to real physics. He found that virtually none of it is possible. Furthermore, transporters and the propulsion systems in Star Trek have been declared completely implausible by Krauss and his qualified reviewers (mainly physicists). I'm sure that hyperdrive technology is just as implausible, but I don't walk around claiming otherwise.

Since when did I mention specific parts that were plausible or not? I am only talking about the two universes as a whole. What I am saying is, that as a whole Star Trek is more plausible and has more footing in the real world than Star Wars. That may be biased but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Versac]

Did you know that, despite all of that, the majority of Star Trek's lore is unrealistic (impossible in reality)?

Hence fiction. But I would hesitate before declaring the absolute laws of the universe. Unification theory's a while off.

[/irony]

[LordEnn]

What I am saying is, that as a whole Star Trek is more plausible and has more footing in the real world than Star Wars. That may be biased but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

As a civilization, the United Federation of Planets is, for obvious reasons, infinitely more plausible than the Galactic Empire. But that's where its connection to reality ends. None of its technology, or anything else within it, is plausible.

[QUOTE=Sumoben]Since when did I mention specific parts that were plausible or not? I am only talking about the two universes as a whole.

You didn't. I was simply presenting you with a number of examples.

[Versac]

As a civilization, the United Federation of Planets is, for obvious reasons, infinitely more plausible than the Galactic Empire. But that's where its connection to reality ends. None of its technology, or anything else within it, is plausible.

Since when did I mention specific parts that were plausible or not? I am only talking about the two universes as a whole.

You didn't. I was simply presenting you with a number of examples.
I'll give you the transporter, and probably the holodeck for good measure, but please share with me your other specific complaints.

[LordEnn]

Hence fiction. But I would hesitate before declaring the absolute laws of the universe. Unification theory's a while off.

[/irony]

Of course. Perhaps, somewhere, Darth Nihilus is consuming planets, and Q is shrinking galactic clusters.

[Versac]

Of course. Perhaps, somewhere, Darth Nihilus is consuming planets, and Q is shrinking galactic clusters.

Exactly! The only difference between science fiction's science and reality's science is a few assumptions. The fewer assumptions, the closer to reality. Given the aforementioned exceptions, the two main assumptions that govern most Trek technology are dilithium and subspace. Everything else is just exponential advancement above current stuff.

[LordEnn]

Exactly! The only difference between science fiction's science and reality's science is a few assumptions. The fewer assumptions, the closer to reality. Given the aforementioned exceptions, the two main assumptions that govern most Trek technology are dilithium and subspace. Everything else is just exponential advancement above current stuff.

I prefer Romulan propulsion technology. They use artificial quantum singularities, and those sound far more interesting. :p

[Versac]

I prefer Romulan propulsion technology. They use artificial singularities, and those sound far more interesting. :p

Eh, it's not as good as you'd think. They just use an AQS as a fuel source for standard warp systems. There was The Beast (a ship, but a big one) from the Starfleet Corps of Engineers novels that actually used internally generated AQSs to drag itself along.

[LordEnn]

Eh, it's not as good as you'd think. They just use an AQS as a fuel source for standard warp systems. There was The Beast (a ship, but a big one) from the Starfleet Corps of Engineers novels that actually used internally generated AQSs to drag itself along.

D'deridex-class engine core (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Dderidex-engine_core.jpg).

For a ship of such size, that's small. :eek:

[Versac]

D'deridex-class engine core (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Dderidex-engine_core.jpg).

For a ship of such size, that's small. :eek:
It makes sense, though. The AQS is... well, a singularity, and thus even a big one is tiny. There's no plasma to deal with, just whatever they use to harvest the energy.

[Catamount]

D'deridex-class engine core (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Dderidex-engine_core.jpg).

For a ship of such size, that's small. :eek:

Remember, that's only the access to it (beats me why'd you need to open up a door to access a contained quantum singularity). Much of the rest of the volume of that engine core could be hidden.

As far as realism, even if I didn't like the claim of Trek being extraordinarily unrealistic, I'd have more respect for you making such a statement and sticking by it than I do for making it and pretending you never said it.

First, in response to a claim that Star Wars ignores science altogether, you said "Star Wars does nothing of the sort. In fact, its avoidance of excessively using extraordinarily idiotic impossibilities makes it seem realistic when compared to Star Trek."

Then, to clarify, you referred to Trek, saying "It is one of the most unrealistic entities of scientific fiction in existence"

Then, when questioned about it you again said of Star Trek that "It's one of the most scientifically unrealistic. "

The statement in itself has been shown to be a rather laughable one, made only more so when you try to pass off nonsense about magical microorganisms and mystical energy fields as science, but whether or not the position becomes untenable after pointing out the flaws in Star Wars doesn't change the fact that you said it several times. Either stick by it or admit that your own pro-Wars bias is causing you to needless attempt to Trek bash.

Do I think Trek is any closer to "reality" than Wars? Of course not. Both have fairly good cannon integrity, but that's not reality. If you think along the same lines then in response to claims of adherence to science you should certainly point Trek's scientific flaws, but don't go saying it's extraordinarily unrealistic, which you did.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

LordEnn, when I call Star Wars Fantasy and Star Trek Science Fiction, I am not referring to the closeness to reality of either series, I am referring to the literary genres in which they fall. Star Trek would fall into the genre of Science Fiction, because it is true Sci-Fi to its core (it explores hypothetical sciences and the human condition - and a lot of the phenomena encountered in Trek IS based on existing understandings of science, even if it takes creative license when speculating on the knowledge of the universe and discoveries we would achieve in the future). Star Wars, however, is a fantasy story in an interstellar setting, and lays better in the Fantasy genre than it does in the Sci-Fi genre. It is more fantastical than Star Trek, yes, but in the sense that it falls more within the literary genre of Fantasy than Science Fiction, not because it is more or less realistic.

Also, a note on transporters and warp technology - Scientists have recently performed experiments that suggest that transportation of matter may, in fact, be possible. I can't remember the specific method the article described for the process, but Scientists were able to copy the state of one particle to another particle. Doing that perfectly required the destruction of the original particle, and they could only create an imperfect copy of the original particle's exact state without destroying the original, resulting in perfect teleportation, but imperfect replication, as in Trek. Now, that's not to say that that is how Trek transporters work, but it does demonstrate that the concept in and of itself is not impossible.

There is also a field theory model, that has not received a lot of attention (partly because it diverges from the common modes of thinking in some ways, and is hard to learn, from what I understand of it), and is barely known, but what experiments have been performed with the model have shown consistent, and more importantly, it describes a method of manipulating magnetic and gravimetric fields that would allow for propulsion, including FTL propulsion, that sounds rather similar to the basic principles of warp drive. Now, it is a rather obscure theory, and as I said, hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but it's still a possibility, especially since we do not currently have any real candidate for a Unified Field Theory, and so many things that are left unexplained or undiscovered. And how many great advances in science came out of obscure theories?

Now, obviously I'm not physicist from the future, so I can't say what discoveries and technologies await us down the road, but there certainly are possibilities that look quite similar to Trek tech, even if they don't follow them exactly.

[Versac]

LordEnn, when I call Star Wars Fantasy and Star Trek Science Fiction, I am not referring to the closeness to reality of either series, I am referring to the literary genres in which they fall. Star Trek would fall into the genre of Science Fiction, because it is true Sci-Fi to its core (it explores hypothetical sciences and the human condition - and a lot of the phenomena encountered in Trek IS based on existing understandings of science, even if it takes creative license when speculating on the knowledge of the universe and discoveries we would achieve in the future). Star Wars, however, is a fantasy story in an interstellar setting, and lays better in the Fantasy genre than it does in the Sci-Fi genre. It is more fantastical than Star Trek, yes, but in the sense that it falls more within the literary genre of Fantasy than Science Fiction, not because it is more or less realistic.

Also, a note on transporters and warp technology - Scientists have recently performed experiments that suggest that transportation of matter may, in fact, be possible. I can't remember the specific method the article described for the process, but Scientists were able to copy the state of one particle to another particle. Doing that perfectly required the destruction of the original particle, and they could only create an imperfect copy of the original particle's exact state without destroying the original, resulting in perfect teleportation, but imperfect replication, as in Trek. Now, that's not to say that that is how Trek transporters work, but it does demonstrate that the concept in and of itself is not impossible.

There is also a field theory model, that has not received a lot of attention (partly because it diverges from the common modes of thinking in some ways, and is hard to learn, from what I understand of it), and is barely known, but what experiments have been performed with the model have shown consistent, and more importantly, it describes a method of manipulating magnetic and gravimetric fields that would allow for propulsion, including FTL propulsion, that sounds rather similar to the basic principles of warp drive. Now, it is a rather obscure theory, and as I said, hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but it's still a possibility, especially since we do not currently have any real candidate for a Unified Field Theory, and so many things that are left unexplained or undiscovered. And how many great advances in science came out of obscure theories?

Now, obviously I'm not physicist from the future, so I can't say what discoveries and technologies await us down the road, but there certainly are possibilities that look quite similar to Trek tech, even if they don't follow them exactly.
Full agreement on the first bit. You said it better than I could. :cool:

Transportation: yes, quantum entanglement allows for the copying of molecular states. Yes, the conservation of information does necessitate the randomization of the original. When it comes to Trek transporting I start to have problems with split-second quantum-level remote scanning, where the 'blank' the transportee is overwriting comes from, and a couple other issues. But the principle is fairly sound.

FTL: Gravetic field manipulation is almost magic at this point. Sure, we can make basic gravity shields, (lessening gravity's effect on an object), but it requires a crapload of energy and massive electromagnetic forces. Again, science will surely march on, at least to some point.

[Catamount]

Inventing new technologies and capabilities are not what make science fictions implausible. The simple fact is that we don't know what we'll develop even 100 years down the road, let alone 1000. Remember that when From the Earth to the Moon was written in 1865, it was completely impossible. You see, practical rocketry hadn't yet been invented. Within the book, a cannon was used, but any such device in reality would subject the people inside the spacecraft to unsurvivable g forces. So it couldn't really be done, it was just ridiculous science fiction. Not only did we put a man on the moon, but the methods of the Apollo program had absolutely uncanny resemblances to the book. In both cases, the spacecraft was launched from Florida, and in both cases a splash landing was used to recover them. In another 150 years, some person might be watching some old episode of Star Trek and saying "oh man, THAT'S not how FTL travel works, what the hell were those people thinking", and then getting on board the USS Enterprise bound for a planet called Vulcan. You just never know.

What makes scifis unrealistic is when they blatantly defy plausibility. When spaceships fly around at FTL speeds, that's not necessarily out of the realm of possibilities. When Enterprise gives a figure for FTL travel (warp 5) that's slower than light, or a Gungan sub in Wars Episode One travels through a planet's core (still staying in water, mind you), THOSE are examples of being unrealistic.

[Catamount]

Full agreement on the first bit. You said it better than I could. :cool:

Transportation: yes, quantum entanglement allows for the copying of molecular states. Yes, the conservation of information does necessitate the randomization of the original. When it comes to Trek transporting I start to have problems with split-second quantum-level remote scanning, where the 'blank' the transportee is overwriting comes from, and a couple other issues. But the principle is fairly sound.

FTL: Gravetic field manipulation is almost magic at this point. Sure, we can make basic gravity shields, (lessening gravity's effect on an object), but it requires a crapload of energy and massive electromagnetic forces. Again, science will surely march on, at least to some point.

There are still issues that may prevent transporters from ever becoming a reality, at least for a long, long time. First, correct me if I'm wrong but there's still the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to deal with (which Trek magically takes care of with heisenberg compensators). Secondly, there's the problem of sheer volumes of information. In a show about Star Trek I saw not too long ago, they said a big hurdle to thinking about transporters is that the amount of information that would need to be conveyed for a human sized object would fill 100GB hard drives stacked one on top of the other from here to the center of the galaxy. Finally, if you destroy the original object, isn't that going to trigger an absolutely monumental release of energy? You already stated the problem with reconstructing one afterward by copying the quantum information to a "blank" on the other side. The way Trek deals with this is that it's matter-energy transport, meaning that you get turned into a stream of energy, which is then reconstituted into matter. Again though, even if possible you run into the problem of the incredible quantities of energy you're talking about. It would be so large, that in reality, a Trek ship fire could transporter beams containing 200lb blocks of iron at enemy ships and do more damage than photon torpedoes.

Where transporting people is concerned, you have a question that Enterprise actually addressed by poking fun at it. You were just destroyed. You were just killed. When you re-materialize, is that really you stepping out on the other side, or some sort of strange copy. Of course that brings us to a really really big existential discussion that I have too much of a headache to get into (though anyone else is free to tackle the metaphysical side of transporters if they wish).

[xlcr]

Untamed bias ruins such debates. There's little left to discuss.



No, it isn't.

Here's the plot to star wars:

A farm boy finds a message in a bottle. The message is from a princess that was captured by an evil wizard. The farm boy finds a good wizard, and together they hire a pirate to take them on his ship to the evil wizard's fortress. They rescue the princess, the good wizard is killed by the evil wizard in a sword fight. The evil wizard's fortress can't be penetrated, so the farm boy (discovering that he too is a wizard), looks deep within himself and destroys the fortress... with magic.

If you ask me, that's fantasy, not sci fi.

[sintar07]

No, they didn't. Rick Sternback was interested in making it realistic, but the produces refused. That's why there were complaints. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about how technology in Star Trek applies to real physics. He found that virtually none of it is possible. Furthermore, transporters and the propulsion systems in Star Trek have been declared completely implausible by Krauss and his qualified reviewers (mainly physicists). I'm sure that hyperdrive technology is just as implausible, but I don't walk around claiming otherwise.

Dude, I have his book, "The Physics of Star Trek," right here in my room. It doesn't say any of that stuff at all. In fact, I've read the entire thing, and the only tech it claims is impossible is the transporter. That's it. Where do you get the idea that he says none of it is possible. What he said was that it's all a long way off, but mostly possible inside our current laws of physics. And again, I have the book right here, right now, in my hand.

One wonders how you plan on winning any arguments when your statements are suspect.

[adriancrouton]

Here's the plot to star wars:

A farm boy finds a message in a bottle. The message is from a princess that was captured by an evil wizard. The farm boy finds a good wizard, and together they hire a pirate to take them on his ship to the evil wizard's fortress. They rescue the princess, the good wizard is killed by the evil wizard in a sword fight. The evil wizard's fortress can't be penetrated, so the farm boy (discovering that he too is a wizard), looks deep within himself and destroys the fortress... with magic.

If you ask me, that's fantasy, not sci fi.

It's Fanta-fi!

[vp21ct]

Here's the plot to star wars:

A farm boy finds a message in a bottle. The message is from a princess that was captured by an evil wizard. The farm boy finds a good wizard, and together they hire a pirate to take them on his ship to the evil wizard's fortress. They rescue the princess, the good wizard is killed by the evil wizard in a sword fight. The evil wizard's fortress can't be penetrated, so the farm boy (discovering that he too is a wizard), looks deep within himself and destroys the fortress... with magic.

If you ask me, that's fantasy, not sci fi.

And it can be made to even more closely resemble the original plot.

A young lord in a desolate and dreary land sees a battle taking place not far from the shore. Soon afterwords, a pair of servant/slaves are found washed up on the beach, and go their separate ways, only to be found by slave traders. The traders take them to the home of the young lord, and his uncle purchases them.

We then find out that one of them has a message for a powerful warrior and wizard, and that it must be delivered to him. The young lord is enthralled by the woman who needs this message sent, but can't do anything about it. So the servant slips his chains and runs. The boy goes off to find him by is attacked by savages. Before they kill him, however, they are sent away by the wizard.

The wizard and the boy talk, and the boy is given his fathers sword, as well as knowledge of magic. The boy then reaches a discovery that the empire may be looking for the servants, and then finds that his family is dead. He goes with the wizard to a nearby port city to seek passage to the cityw here he hopes to find answeres.

Lucas used the sci fi setting because of the success of ST:TMP and also because he wanted to do a twist on the fantasy plot. Personally, I have never watched Star Wars as a sci fi, I watch it as a fantasy. The same goes for most of the books.

Star Trek, on the other hand, doesn't work so well with out Sci fi.

sorry to burst anyones bubble.

[Sumoben]

And it can be made to even more closely resemble the original plot.

A young lord in a desolate and dreary land sees a battle taking place not far from the shore. Soon afterwords, a pair of servant/slaves are found washed up on the beach, and go their separate ways, only to be found by slave traders. The traders take them to the home of the young lord, and his uncle purchases them.

We then find out that one of them has a message for a powerful warrior and wizard, and that it must be delivered to him. The young lord is enthralled by the woman who needs this message sent, but can't do anything about it. So the servant slips his chains and runs. The boy goes off to find him by is attacked by savages. Before they kill him, however, they are sent away by the wizard.

The wizard and the boy talk, and the boy is given his fathers sword, as well as knowledge of magic. The boy then reaches a discovery that the empire may be looking for the servants, and then finds that his family is dead. He goes with the wizard to a nearby port city to seek passage to the cityw here he hopes to find answeres.

Lucas used the sci fi setting because of the success of ST:TMP and also because he wanted to do a twist on the fantasy plot. Personally, I have never watched Star Wars as a sci fi, I watch it as a fantasy. The same goes for most of the books.

Star Trek, on the other hand, doesn't work so well with out Sci fi.

sorry to burst anyones bubble.

Well, Star Trek doesn't work at all without Sci Fi, the whole concept would be thrown out of whack, unless we could magically teleport between planets that are lightyears away, no offense Stargate..

[vp21ct]

Well, Star Trek doesn't work at all without Sci Fi, the whole concept would be thrown out of whack, unless we could magically teleport between planets that are lightyears away, no offense Stargate..

It does, but it ends up looking alot like gulivers travels.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

It does, but it ends up looking alot like gulivers travels.

Gulliver's Wagon Train?

[vp21ct]

No, while the wagon train idea CAN work, I find that an old tall ship works at the best analog. Think of it, a crew who may not see home for years at a time, exploring distant and strange lands. Then, when some of the more fantastic aspects come into play, it begins to take on elements of Guliver's Travels (the name of the author escapes me right now, but I'm sure it will come to me) or 20,000 leagues under the sea. Though both are arguably Sci Fi, they more closely resemble the old tall tales that people used to tell.

The Klingons could be a warlike and savage, yet powerful other empire.

The romulans are able to somehow submerge their vessels.

etc.

[Sumoben]

Janeway will defeat all of Star Wars with....... wait for it..........




Click here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=15765)

[sintar07]

Janeway will defeat all of Star Wars with....... wait for it..........




Click here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=15765)

Too true, too true...

[adriancrouton]

To me, enything with star-ship's and lazer gun's is si-fi.

[xlcr]

To me, enything with star-ship's and lazer gun's is si-fi.

Fair enough.

To me, anything with pure magic, wizards, classical heroes, and sword fights is fantasy.

But that's what's great about star wars. It's one genre painted up to look like another genre with the pure intent of getting a younger audience interested in myth and fantasy. And it worked. So it's all good.

I'm just saying the comparisons between star trek and star wars are very much impossible because one of them has magic, fate, and ships that don't follow any rules. Lucas based the death star battle on WWII fighter planes, for example. He even brought in stock footage to use as a model for it. Star Wars is all about what works visually. Any scientific explanations about Star Wars ships or equipment come after the fact, from people that want to reconcile that it LOOKS like sci fi.

[Ilithi_Dragon]

I'm just saying the comparisons between star trek and star wars are very much impossible because one of them has magic, fate, and ships that don't follow any rules. Lucas based the death star battle on WWII fighter planes, for example. He even brought in stock footage to use as a model for it. Star Wars is all about what works visually. Any scientific explanations about Star Wars ships or equipment come after the fact, from people that want to reconcile that it LOOKS like sci fi.

But there IS a point to it all. Bertrand Russel put it best when he said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

The whole purpose of this thread, and in my opinion the whole purpose of the ST vs SW debate, is for the enjoyment of the intellectual exercise (and exercise in geekiness } ; = 8 ) ). It doesn't MATTER if they're not from the same genre - we can still draw comparisons just the same, and still have fun doing it, just the same (provided people don't go overboard with the competitive side of things).

[Sumoben]

But there IS a point to it all. Bertrand Russel put it best when he said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

The whole purpose of this thread, and in my opinion the whole purpose of the ST vs SW debate, is for the enjoyment of the intellectual exercise (and exercise in geekiness } ; = 8 ) ). It doesn't MATTER if they're not from the same genre - we can still draw comparisons just the same, and still have fun doing it, just the same (provided people don't go overboard with the competitive side of things).

Yay, someone I can.... uhm.... relate to?

Intellectual exercise, something many many people need.

[xlcr]

But there IS a point to it all. Bertrand Russel put it best when he said, "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

The whole purpose of this thread, and in my opinion the whole purpose of the ST vs SW debate, is for the enjoyment of the intellectual exercise (and exercise in geekiness } ; = 8 ) ). It doesn't MATTER if they're not from the same genre - we can still draw comparisons just the same, and still have fun doing it, just the same (provided people don't go overboard with the competitive side of things).

I actually have no retort to that. Good point. I think I hate you now (not really :) ).

Please note that my side point in saying they're apples/oranges is the same thing (intellectual exercise). Although it was admittedly a side-track.

I still say star wars is fantasy though.

[Catamount]

Star Wars is definitely fantasy. I'm not sure why such a statement would make people so defensive, it really doesn't alter the story at all to put it into that genre (especially since it fits so well), but It's still hard to disregard the very heavy fantasy themes despite all the technology around.

[vp21ct]

"Any Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." ~ Aurthur C. Clark.

[sintar07]

Well sure, but by the same token, it's not necessarily super advanced tech just because it looks magic. It might just be magic (i.e. The Force). Granted, that doesn't make anything in SW any less cool...
However, the things we have been comparing up until now are fully capable of being compared. I think we've all basically agreed that the Jedi wouldn't join a conflict against the Federation anyway (mostly 'cause they're all dead :p), so it's just questions of technology against technology (and of course, myself and Ilithi's theory of Imperial incompetence :D).

[Catamount]

Well sure, but by the same token, it's not necessarily super advanced tech just because it looks magic. It might just be magic (i.e. The Force). Granted, that doesn't make anything in SW any less cool...
However, the things we have been comparing up until now are fully capable of being compared. I think we've all basically agreed that the Jedi wouldn't join a conflict against the Federation anyway (mostly 'cause they're all dead :p), so it's just questions of technology against technology (and of course, myself and Ilithi's theory of Imperial incompetence :D).

Hey, hey, don't forget me :p I started bashing Imperials officers first! :D

[sintar07]

Hey, hey, don't forget me :p I started bashing Imperials officers first! :D

I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire 100+ pages before I decided to get in on the action:o
Okay, so myself, Ilithi's, and Catamount's theory on incompetence.

[adriancrouton]

takeing coputer-animation leson's... 155.95$

hiering people to do voice's in your movie... 300.00$

waching Star Trek giting ownd by Star Wars... Priceless.

You can do this and more on you Visa-master-card.

I could not resist:D

[vp21ct]

waching Star Trek giting ownd by Star Wars... Priceless.



Precicely when did this happen.

As far as I can tell, Star Trek Trumped Star Wars at teh box office during the Movie Era and the Original Trilogy.

Both have kindof fallen from their original grace.

Hell, STII:WoK beat Ep 4 by nearly two fold at the box office, and it was made with half the cost of the FIRST star trek movie.

[Catamount]

It's true that both are definitely not what they used to be. At least there is potential for Trek though, as First Contact really did quite well despite coming in later than the other really successful films (like ST II and IV).

[Rabarrashy]

Okay, I'm not reading EVERY comment posted here as that's around 600 posts. And I've never read a Star Wars or Star Trek novel or seen a single ship schematic. I enjoy both Trek and Wars and have to admit I am a little bias towards Roddenberry rather than Lucas since his "Phantom Menace" but here goes. My long thought out and well argued take on who would win? The Empire (dominant Star Wars universe fleet) or the Federation (dominant Star Trek universe fleet)? Simple, the Federation. Why? Let us review.... the Federations defining battle so far has to be with the Dominion and they won. The Empires defining battle was the Ewoks and they lost. They lost to a bunch of small bears, slightly intelligent koalas. Bears which would make Jar Jar freaking Binks look like a Jedi master. The Empire had one MVP and that was Vader (with the savvy of Palpatine behind him) the rest of the troops were little more than "red shirts" in white armour. They dominated the Star Wars universe through strength in numbers and big ships however I'm thinking that comparitive size makes a Star Destroyer about the size of a Breen Destroyer and the fact a SUPER Star Destroyer was wiped out by ONE A-Wing on a suicide collision doesn't say much for it's defensive capabilities. Overal I believe the strength of Starfleet would be more than a match for the Empire, add in the possible involvement of the Klingon Empire and other Federation allies and it's game over.

[adriancrouton]

Precicely when did this happen.

As far as I can tell, Star Trek Trumped Star Wars at teh box office during the Movie Era and the Original Trilogy.

Both have kindof fallen from their original grace.

Hell, STII:WoK beat Ep 4 by nearly two fold at the box office, and it was made with half the cost of the FIRST star trek movie.

I was being sarcastick:rolleyes:

[vp21ct]

Yea, sarcasm doesn't work so well over the interwebs.

[Sumoben]

Yea, sarcasm doesn't work so well over the interwebs.

No way! Sarcasm works perfectly fine on the internet! /em sarcasm.

[Galvon]

Star Trek hands down. The major factor. Speed. Star Wars is the jump to lightspeed. And only that. Star Trek lightspeed is warp 1. Then the old formulas for warp speed in the original manuals is warp speed cubed times the speed of light. so warp 1 is 1 x1 x1= 1 times the speed of light. Warp 2 is 2x 2x 2 =8 times the speed of light. warp 3 is 3 x3 x3 = 27 times the speed of light..etc etc...which is how travel between star systems can happen i a couple days or a couple weeks to get from sector 001 to the neutral zones. The distance to our closet neighboring star even at lightspeed would take 4.37 years.

[Catamount]

Star Trek hands down. The major factor. Speed. Star Wars is the jump to lightspeed. And only that. Star Trek lightspeed is warp 1. Then the old formulas for warp speed in the original manuals is warp speed cubed times the speed of light. so warp 1 is 1 x1 x1= 1 times the speed of light. Warp 2 is 2x 2x 2 =8 times the speed of light. warp 3 is 3 x3 x3 = 27 times the speed of light..etc etc...which is how travel between star systems can happen i a couple days or a couple weeks to get from sector 001 to the neutral zones. The distance to our closet neighboring star even at lightspeed would take 4.37 years.

I don't blame you for not being aware of this as you obviously haven't been here for this entire thread, but we've discussed this several times. "lightspeed" is just a slang term for an arbitrarily decided velocity within hyperspace. It's not the speed of light. The speed of light is impossibly slow to get anywhere, and you proved that within your own post. Even if Alderaan were only as far from Tatooine as Proxima Centauri is from Sol, Episode 4 would have taken place over more than 4 years, which it obviously didn't. Star Wars FTL technology might, in fact, be a good deal faster than Star Trek's. We don't really know though, because neither definite distances between any major worlds or a definite size for the galaxy are given at any point in Wars.

[starshipcaptain]

Stargate SG-1 beat star trek in season in a long shot

Star Wars doesn't require antimatter to operate thier ships.