# Star Wars Universe vs. Star Trek Universe



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

THERE ARE NO FORCE USERS INVOLVED IN THIS FIGHT.

It's purely technological. Any godlike/physic/immortal beings in star Trek are also banned. There are no Sith, Jedi, or force users involved in this fight. EU material is NOT included. 

*Plot*: A rift in time/space/reality caused by some random computer geek merges the two universes together creating a new universe which basically consists of all planets and solar systems from both universes. 

That being said, who has the greater technology?


----------



## alchemy1234 (May 8, 2009)

Star Trek sucks, so star wars would uni. would win.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Thank you for that enlightening post.

Now GET OUT.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 8, 2009)

alchemy1234 said:


> Star Trek sucks, so star wars would uni. would win.



Go watch the new movie. Now.

On topic, unless things have majorly changed with the new movie, Star Wars is far above Trek in what matters (firepower, shielding, and FTL).  Aside from transporters, Trek's got nothing on Star Wars.  SW rapes.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Star Trek still has Cloaking devices, Warp Drive, Deflector Shielding, etc..

Sure, the Star Warsverse has stuff like the Sun Crusher and the Death Star. But Star Trek has "The Planet Killer" which is pretty much a better Death Star.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 8, 2009)

Cloaking technology exists in SW, also.  Hyperdrive >>> Warp Drive.

Take controversial calculations out of the picture, and the movie Star Wars firepower is apparently even with ST.  However, you allowed the EU, which has Star Destroyers firing from across solar systems, annihalating the surface of a planet within an hour, and has the sparks from turbolasers destroy small towns.  EU Star Wars firepower >>> Star Trek Firepower.

Let's not forget that SW ships can traverse the galaxy in a matter of days, while Voyager expected to take decades to cross a quarter of it.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Point Taken. EU Star Wars is too much for the STverse. I'll just edit the OP then.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 8, 2009)

Death Star, Galaxy Gun, World Destroyers, Dark Reaper, etc.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Ahh, but you see. EU crap is not included.

And the Death Star could pretty easily get taken out by ST's Planet Killer.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 8, 2009)

Dark Reaper isn't part of the EU, if you want to call the Clone Wars games part of the canon outside of the movies.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Yeah, anything not in the movies is EU.

I guess the Clone Wars movie might count as cannon though.

BASICALLY, Everything that was written/made/produced/approved/directed by George Lucas is Cannon right?


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 8, 2009)

Exacta. Well, there's always the Blue Shadow Virus 

But that would cause casualties on both sides, lest the SW universe were prepared for it to be unleashed.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

Come to think of it, there's far more hax in the Star Trek universe than there is in the Star Wars Universe.

You know, the whole higher dimensional omniscient beings that have unlimited power thing.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 8, 2009)

And isn't that why they aren't allowed?


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

yep.. Just musing out loud..


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 8, 2009)

Mmhmm...


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

The way I see it is that the Empire has a much larger military industrial complex than the Federation/Romulans/Klingons, etc.. and probably has more firepower per pound of steel than ST ships, however, the ST universe has much more haxxed technology like the ability to fight at thousands of kilometers, transporters, external hologram tech (it's been done before) and anything having to do with tachyon beams and the deflector array.  So I'd say in a war, the Empire stomps, but ship on ship, ST has the advantage.


----------



## Darklyre (May 8, 2009)

Star Trek's main problem isn't its technology, it's the huge amount of CIS everyone gets. I mean, they've got solar-system scale WMDs lying EVERYWHERE, and no one has any idea how to effectively use them.

For instance, look at that Borg nanoprobe bomb. It's supposed to be able to infect a huge radius. However, going by basic math, 99.9% of the probes would just fly off into empty space.

Thalaron radiation? I could think of ten different ways in which to weaponize that in a way that could take out SW ships. But nooooo, Trek has to install it on a fucking ship or set it off manually instead of simply setting it to detonate in 1 minute and teleporting it into the target.

enzymeii: Thousands of kilometers is nearly point-blank in a space battle for the likes of Star Wars and 40k. SW and 40k ships fight in the light-second/minute ranges. Moreover, Trek ships fight with finesse, using phasers to rip open shielding and for surgical strikes on ship parts. SW simply blasts the target with overwhelming firepower, or sends fighters/bombers to do the job.

Besides, Trek ships have to drop into impulse to actually fight with the SW ships, and impulse speed is hilariously slow.


----------



## Darth (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> The way I see it is that the Empire has a much larger military industrial complex than the Federation/Romulans/Klingons, etc.. and probably has more firepower per pound of steel than ST ships, however, the ST universe has much more haxxed technology like the ability to fight at thousands of kilometers, transporters, external hologram tech (it's been done before) and anything having to do with tachyon beams and the deflector array.  So I'd say in a war, the Empire stomps, but ship on ship, ST has the advantage.



In terms of numbers and ship on ship, the Borg absolutely anihillate the Empire IMO.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Darth Ruin said:


> In terms of numbers and ship on ship, the Borg absolutely anihillate the Empire IMO.



One Star-Destroyer could beat an armada of Borg Cubes and Spheres. One MLT turbolaser has more firepower than 500 Federation warships.

Rofl.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

Which is funny cause the Borg Cube in First Contact only took out 320ish ships. Lulz.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Which is funny cause the Borg Cube in First Contact only took out 320ish ships. Lulz.



Which doesn't matter when it was calculated that the 500+ something Federation would have to fire non-stop at a Imperial-class Star-Destroyer for over two and half weeks to bring down its shields.

The Borg are shit.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

That was kinda my point.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Well you worded it vaguely. Plus the Borg in First Contact were retarded.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Which doesn't matter when it was calculated that the 500+ something Federation would have to fire non-stop at a Imperial-class Star-Destroyer for over two and half weeks to bring down its shields.
> 
> The Borg are shit.



Could you provide an actual calc on this?


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Could you provide an actual calc on this?



This has already been referenced on SD.net several times before hand from Space Battles and CBR. And I've posted it here in the 40K FC and the OBD multiple times last year.

I'm not digging it up to spend hours just to get a concession.

And canon technical manuels under Curtis Saxton have Star-Destroyers producing more energy than stars do in their hypermatter reactors.

A 22 year old glorified troop transport produces more than 200 gigatons of firepower. Lol.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> This has already been referenced on SD.net several times before hand from Space Battles and CBR. And I've posted it here in the 40K FC and the OBD multiple times last year.
> 
> I'm not digging it up to spend hours just to get a concession.
> 
> ...



If you aren't willing to provide proof then don't make ridiculous claims like "it would take a week for a federation fleet to destroy a SD, lol" in the first place.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> If you aren't willing to provide proof then don't make ridiculous claims like "it would take for a federation fleet to destroy a SD, lol" in the first place.



Let me know when standard civilian transports or starships fly in close-proximity to neutron stars or warships can stay in orbit around super giant stars.

The rest of your post is boring like when you claimed  the Borg could adapt to pure force.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Let me know when standard civilian transports or starships fly in close-proximity to neutron stars or warships can stay in orbit around super giant stars.



Let me know when a SW ship does that in cannon too.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Let me know when a SW ship does that in cannon too.



They did it in the Han Solo trilogy with the Falcon and the Howel Runner along with a Star Destroyer sitting in sub-orbit around Nkon's sun. 

Keep whining about it if you want.  But Lucas Licensing and Film accepted his calculations and allowed him to co-write the RoTS ICS and the AoTC ICS along with the technical manuels for the franchise.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> They did it in the Han Solo trilogy with the Falcon and the Howel Runner along with a Star Destroyer sitting in sub-orbit around Nkon's sun.
> 
> Keep whining about it if you want.  But Lucas Licensing and Film accepted his calculations and allowed him to co-write the RoTS ICS and the AoTC ICS along with the technical manuels for the franchise.



...except this thread specifically states that EU is banned


----------



## RAGING BONER (May 8, 2009)

Q wins....


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> ...except this thread specifically states that EU is banned



Technical manules and the ICS are not a part of EU.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Technical manules and the ICS are not a part of EU.





			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> G-canon is absolute canon; the movies (their most recent release), the scripts, the novelizations of the movies, the radio plays, and any statements by George Lucas himself. G-canon overrides the lower levels of canon when there is a contradiction. Within G-canon, many fans follow an unofficial progression of canonicity where the movies are the highest canon, followed by the scripts, the novelizations, and then the radio plays.



...nope don't see technical manuals anywhere in there.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> ...nope don't see technical manuals anywhere in there.



Wrong again.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

Care to highlight it for me then?


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 8, 2009)

Warsie wank alert!



TWF said:


> One Star-Destroyer could beat an armada of Borg Cubes and Spheres. One MLT turbolaser has more firepower than 500 Federation warships.
> 
> Rofl.



Yeah, thanks for that laugh.



TWF said:


> Which doesn't matter when it was calculated that the 500+ something Federation would have to fire non-stop at a Imperial-class Star-Destroyer for over two and half weeks to bring down its shields.
> 
> The Borg are shit.



Again, thank you.



TWF said:


> Well you worded it vaguely. Plus the Borg in First Contact were retarded.



Well, in FC the Borg were shown to have sucktastic strategy, but they demonstrated the rather broken insta-assimilation ability.



TWF said:


> This has already been referenced on SD.net several times before hand from Space Battles and CBR. And I've posted it here in the 40K FC and the OBD multiple times last year.
> 
> I'm not digging it up to spend hours just to get a concession.
> 
> ...



That explains why they have to build a moon-sized superlaser to destroy a planet, right? 



TWF said:


> Let me know when standard civilian transports or starships fly in close-proximity to neutron stars or warships can stay in orbit around super giant stars.



EU not allowed.



> The rest of your post is boring like when you claimed  the Borg could adapt to pure force.



Personal shielding technology against blasters exists.
The Borg can assimilate virtually any technology.
Therefore, the Borg would assimilate personal shielding technology and be defended against blasters.



TWF said:


> They did it in the Han Solo trilogy with the Falcon and the Howel Runner along with a Star Destroyer sitting in sub-orbit around Nkon's sun.



Again, EU not allowed.



> Keep whining about it if you want.  But Lucas Licensing and Film accepted his calculations and allowed him to co-write the RoTS ICS and the AoTC ICS along with the technical manuels for the franchise.





TWF said:


> Technical manules and the ICS are not a part of EU.



Prove it.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Care to highlight it for me then?



Care to stop showcasing bias and ignorance?



			
				Wookiepedia said:
			
		

> *G-canon is George Lucas Canon; the six Episodes and anything directly [provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas (including unpublished production notes from him or his production department that are never seen by the public)]. Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books, and other sources are also G-canon,* though anything created by the authors of those sources is C-canon. When the matter of changes between movie versions arises, the most recently released editions are deemed superior to older ones, as they correct mistakes, improve consistency between the two trilogies, and express Lucas's current vision of the Star Wars universe most closely. The deleted scenes included on the DVDs are also considered G-canon (when they're not in conflict with the movie).



Leland Chee already stated that the ICS and technical commentaries are canon to represent the films. Saxton's calculations and values are canon as they are solely derived from evidence in the films and licensed as such by Lucas Films.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 8, 2009)

Now prove he's stated that the ICS is canon.

And if you try comparing ICS numbers to numbers in a random Trek episode... when was the last time Trek technobabble was worth anything?


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Warsie wank alert!



Coming from you? 



> Yeah, thanks for that laugh.



Evidence supported by the films? Check.
Calculations done by Mike Wong, Conner Mcloud and others? Check.



> Again, thank you



:snorlax:



> Well, in FC the Borg were shown to have sucktastic strategy, but they demonstrated the rather broken insta-assimilation ability.



Not against plasma.
Not against kinetic force and energy.
Not against tactics a chimpanzee could recongize.



> That explains why they have to build a moon-sized superlaser to destroy a planet, right?



Bender Ninja proving he doesn't know the difference between planetary destruction and planet busting.



> Personal shielding technology against blasters exists.
> The Borg can assimilate virtually any technology.
> Therefore, the Borg would assimilate personal shielding technology and be defended against blasters.



Because pulling this technology out their ass is something the Borg have done before right.



> Prove it.



Already have.



Manwë Súlimo said:


> Now prove he's stated that the ICS is canon.
> 
> And if you try comparing ICS numbers to numbers in a random Trek episode... when was the last time Trek technobabble was worth anything?



Stop complaining. Lucas Films authorized the ICS because they wanted his calculations to be made into canon from the films to demonstrate the technology and firepower of the Empire.

The ICS are source books and manuels for the films.


----------



## Darklyre (May 8, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> That explains why they have to build a moon-sized superlaser to destroy a planet, right?



To shatter a planet Alderaan-style requires something on the order of a million times the energy needed to turn the crust to slag.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Hey Dark did you ever see the calculations done on the light trench guns of a Star Destroyer? Conservative calculations by Wong, (who stated they were honestly much higher at the mid range) put them in the  multi-megaton range for double digits.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

Okay, so some tech manuals can be considered cannon, but I'm still waiting on calcs for the entire starfleet being unable to destroy a single SD.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Okay, so some tech manuals can be considered cannon, but I'm still waiting on calcs for the entire starfleet being unable to destroy a single SD.



Because Star Destroyer can take teraton level barrages per second above 860 teratons and keep fighting while taking that energy for over two hours as evidence in Return of the Jedi.

Nothing in Star Trek does that.
500 Federation ships don't even output 200 gigatons of firepower with hours of time.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Nothing in Star Trek does that.



That's not quite true. Q blew up stars from another dimension and 8472 blew up a planet under "special conditions".


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> That's not quite true. Q blew up stars from another dimension and 8472 blew up a planet under "special conditions".



I know the Species 8472 do that but that's based off of a DET or chemical reaction, not pure power. And Q doesn't really count.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Because Star Destroyer can take teraton level barrages per second above 860 teratons and keep fighting while taking that energy for over two hours as evidence in Return of the Jedi.
> 
> Nothing in Star Trek does that.
> 500 Federation ships don't even output 200 gigatons of firepower with hours of time.



And herein lies the problem with tech manuals.  You can pull out any figures for your verse that you want as long as they are at least somewhat congruous with the other figures for your verse, but if it doesn't actually match up with primary cannon, then it's useful only as a means to gauge characters and ships form within the verse against each other.

ie, we have never seen any direct on-screen evidence of SW weapons being in the teraton range.  Even if each turbolaser, as the RotS novel claims, is powerful enough to "vaporize a small town" that would still only put it in the 1-2 megaton range.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> And herein lies the problem with tech manuals.  You can pull out any figures for your verse that you want as long as they are at least somewhat congruous with the other figures for your verse, but if it doesn't actually match up with primary cannon, then it's useful only as a means to gauge characters and ships form within the verse against each other.



Yes it does. Multi-digit megaton ranges are conservative calculations based off showings at TESB with the asteroids for ANTI-STARFIGHTER BATTERIES.

And the weapons of a starfighter, Jango Fett's Slave 1, showcased multi-kiloton sesmic charges during the scene between the fight with Obi-Wan in the asteroid belt of Genosis.



> ie, we have never seen any direct on-screen evidence of SW weapons being in the teraton range.  Even if each turbolaser, as the RotS novel claims, is powerful enough to "vaporize a small town" that would still only put it in the 1-2 megaton range.



Those were references to 22 year old MLT turbolasers. And small towns by Star Wars standards were there are thousands of systems that feature worlds with semi-ecumenpolis cities. 

And the RoTJ novelization had wings of fighters armed with thermonuclear devices calculated above multi-megatons not even scratching the paint of capital ships or bridge deflector shields.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Yes it does. Multi-digit megaton ranges are conservative calculations based off showings at TESB with the asteroids for ANTI-STARFIGHTER BATTERIES.
> 
> And the weapons of a starfighter, Jango Fett's Slave 1, showcased multi-kiloton sesmic charges during the scene between the fight with Obi-Wan in the asteroid belt of Genosis.



Wasn't a Star Destroyer's bridge destroyed by an asteroid in TESB?



> Those were references to 22 year old MLT turbolasers. And small towns by Star Wars standards were there are thousands of systems that feature worlds with semi-ecumenpolis cities.
> 
> And the RoTJ novelization had wings of fighters armed with thermonuclear devices calculated above multi-megatons not even scratching the paint of capital ships or bridge deflector shields.



So... you're saying that turbolasers got thousands of times more powerful between episodes III and IV? 

And why would the author mean "small town" by SW standards and not real life standards?  He's not writing to people who live in the SW-verse


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Wasn't a Star Destroyer's bridge destroyed by an asteroid in TESB?



A severely weakened Star-Destroyer still suffering damage from Echo Base's Ion Cannon.



> So... you're saying that turbolasers got thousands of times more powerful between episodes III and IV?



No.



> And why would the author mean "small town" by SW standards and not real life standards?  He's not writing to people who live in the SW-verse



Except that Stover never writes omniscient narratives.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

IIRC Curtris Saxton calculated that each turbolaser from an ISD, of which there is something like 140, produces a 200 gigaton blast as an absolute minimum.

And there are as many as 25,000 ISD's, some of which are also Super ISD's, but I'm not sure how many of them are.

Interms of firepower, shielding and speed, Star Wars is far beyond things in the Star Trek universe.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> A severely weakened Star-Destroyer still suffering damage from Echo Base's Ion Cannon.



Any proof of this?



> No.



Can you clarify what you meant then, when you said that the "small town level" turbo lasers was in reference to old technology and not indicative of the capitol ships' firing power?



> Except that Stover never writes omniscient narratives.



So... just to get this straight, are you _really_ claiming that when the dude wrote "small town" he actually meant "several thousand times larger than a small town"?


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> I know the Species 8472 do that but that's based off of a DET or chemical reaction, not pure power.


True but the reaction was enough to bust a planet. If it can destroy a planet it can destroy a ship that isn't moving very fast. Admittedly that's the best 8472 has to offer vs 1 ISD which is rather laughable in itself.



> And Q doesn't really count.


Indeed, I just stated it for accuracy sake.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Any proof of this?



Have you ever watched The Empire Strikes Back?



> Can you clarify what you meant then, when you said that the "small town level" turbo lasers was in reference to old technology and not indicative of the capitol ships' firing power?



A Venator-class Star-Destroyer was developed 22.5 years before the Galactic Civil War when the Galactic Empire and ISD's were established. That said, a small town by Star Wars standards isn't a small town by ours.



> So... just to get this straight, are you _really_ claiming that when the dude wrote "small town" he actually meant "several thousand times larger than a small town"?



Can you stop messing with context. There was no reference to the heavy quads or dual turbolasers used by Venators, turbolasers "destroying small towns" could be equated to its light batteries, which is likely what it is since the films have showed they have this power.

I liked how you ignored the RoTJ quote on starfighters.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 8, 2009)

Species 8472 would win it for Star Trek.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

No they wouldn't. They consider it material loss when they lose one Bioship. As soon as they try to engage the Empire, they get wiped out from thousands of kilometers away with light-minute ranged weaponary.


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

Okay, lets try and be enlightened about this:
First off, The Star wars verse have much more massive ships, ton for ton, SSD's are Several Kilometres long, and the long staple of the Federation, the Sovreign class battleship is only 700.

Personnel wise, the GE is on par with most civilisations in the ST universe, together, as it is essentially a Galaxy Spanning empire.

Technology wise, the Empire is FASTER. a LOT FASTER. Faster even than the borg, but only on a Strategic level, on a Tactical level, they're about on Par.

So, basically, the empire is larger, stronger, and faster.

But the esoteric technologies is where it really starts to bte them in the ass.
I can't count the number of times transporters have been used to defeat the enemy, transporting weaponry and boarding teams onto enemy ships, kidnapping commanding officers, etcetera. Now sure, its not possible through shielding, but so many races in the ST universe are capable of cloaking, and approaching ships with their shields down.

Then there's PHASE cloaking, the ability to cloak and travel THROUGH MATTER.

Matter replication, simply put, the empire has a HUGE HUGE disadvantage in the fact that they need to supply their troops with weaponry, and food, and they need to dock and repair. ST ships can replicate any food and parts they need, meaning the empire has to have long supply chains, and refits, while the ST verse doesnt.

Now, the borg, simply put, the empire only has an advantage over them, until the first of their ships is captured.
Then its game over. It doesnt have to be a SSD thats captured, it could be a basic freighter, 30m long, even a civilian crapship, but they'd gain the Ability to use Hyperdrive, and there goes the  Speed advantage of the empire.

A size advantage is all well and good, but when a single borg drone aboard your ship, means that you lose, its really rather redundant. One drone aboard the death star, inject some Nanoprobes into a random system, and eventually, there goes the death star.

Another thing to point out about size, is again, its redudnant, a SSD is capable of BDZ'ing a planets surface. And its length can be up to 14km.

9 150m long Species 8472 Ships can reduce an entire planet to to space debris, the difference in technological power right there is insane.
(Biological I guess heh)

Thats not even including all the goddamn time travel that occurs in ST, there's TONS OF IT. Kirk can go back in time by making a slingshot manouvre around a sun, (so can picard lulz)
In Star Trek: Enterprise, most of the show is about fighting villians 400-1000 years in the future or past at any given time, technology has been shown that allows people to literally walk through any solid matter as if it didn't exist.

Then we have numbers. Numberwise, the GE is massively undermanned compared to the star trek verse, probably due to the fact that their ships are larger. But size DOESNT matter in this particular conflict.

There are hundreds of more esoteric aliens with unique abilities and odd powers throughout the series, to list them all would take too long, frankly, the GE will be annihilated in this fight.

Now, if it was the GE versus any one race, aside from the Borg, I'd easily bet on the GE, but the whole verse? Not a chance.

Assuming, as its one  verse vs another, that they collaborate, the GE will be fighting an army of Cloaked transport capable assasins, able to appear at any GE planet undetected, decimate its command structure, transport away its food and military, Mindfuckery through use of the Betazoids and symbiotes, instant destruction of any ship that has its shields down, so forth and so on.

There were several species in the ST Verse that were capable of utterly ignoring shielding, combine that particular ability, with transporting borg drones on board ships, and the GE's Weaponry advantage (if it actually has one, which is possible) is nullified. 

The whole thing where people assume that a battle of two universes, technology based or otherwise, is entirely based on who has the bigger gun... well... Its not.

Also, Borg cubes are 3km to a side, so they're hardly miniscule.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> No they wouldn't. They consider it material loss when they lose one Bioship. As soon as they try to engage the Empire, they get wiped out from thousands of kilometers away with light-minute ranged weaponary.



You assume they would leave fluidic space at that range and sit about?

They can engage and attack while at warp speed (warp9). That gives them an insane speed advantage over.

Theres also nothing stopping every imperial planet from vanishing 20 seconds into the conflict.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

Production is a large factor too.

The Death Star II had the equivalent volume for some billions of ISD's, all built in two years. I'm pretty sure nothing in the Star Trek universe even comes close.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

While it took two and half years to build the majority of the DS 2, sixty percent of the work was done in just around six months.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Have you ever watched The Empire Strikes Back?



I wrote an essay on it for a religion class, it's one of my favorite movies.  That being said, I don't remember anything to indicate that Star Destroyer had been damaged.




> A Venator-class Star-Destroyer was developed 22.5 years before the Galactic Civil War when the Galactic Empire and ISD's were established. That said, a small town by Star Wars standards isn't a small town by ours.



Even if a "small town by SW standards" is something like 5-10x larger than one by our standards (ignoring towns like Mos Eisley which _are_ town sized), that still puts the fire-power of Star Destroyers light years below the figures you're claiming.



> Can you stop messing with context. There was no reference to the heavy quads or dual turbolasers used by Venators, turbolasers "destroying small towns" could be equated to its light batteries, which is likely what it is since the films have showed they have this power.



The exact quote is:


			
				rots novel said:
			
		

> From the inside, it's different. The gnats are drive-glows of starfighters. The shining hairlines are light-scatter from *turbolaser bolts powerful enough to vaporize a small town*. The planetoids are capital ships."


You're the one who needs to stop messing with context.  Turbo-lasers are started by a G-cannon source to be town level, nothing more.



> I liked how you ignored the RoTJ quote on starfighters.



Can't remember the exact quote.  I'm trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible, so could you repeat this point?  Thanks.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

Rice Ball said:


> You assume they would leave fluidic space at that range and sit about?
> 
> They can engage and attack while at warp speed (warp9). That gives them an insane speed advantage over.
> 
> Theres also nothing stopping every imperial planet from vanishing 20 seconds into the conflict.



You do realize that even with Warp 9, it's still take around 100 years to travel across the galaxy right?

That's really not that fast.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 8, 2009)

Han Solo said:


> You do realize that even with Warp 9, it's still take around 100 years to travel across the galaxy right?
> 
> That's really not that fast.



Sure, it doesn't have to be when your dog fighting at that speed.

Any G-canon forces shown a star destroying attacking a target while traveling via hyperspace?


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> You're the one who needs to stop messing with context.  Turbo-lasers are started by a G-cannon source to be town level, nothing more.



The power required to actually vaporize something is massive, even with something as small as a town.

Regardless, Lucas Film has confirmed Curtis Saxton's calculations.
Turbolasers are 200 gigatons per shot, as an absolute minimum.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> I wrote an essay on it for a religion class, it's one of my favorite movies.  That being said, I don't remember anything to indicate that Star Destroyer had been damaged.



Considering how ion cannons work I'd say it was rather badly damaged. It was basicly hit by a massive EMP.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

Rice Ball said:


> Any G-canon forces shown a star destroying attacking a target while traveling via hyperspace?



No idea actually.

I have the books though, I'll see if I can find something in them.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

Han Solo said:


> The power required to actually vaporize something is massive, even with something as small as a town.
> 
> Regardless, Lucas Film has confirmed Curtis Saxton's calculations.
> Turbolasers are 200 gigatons per shot, as an absolute minimum.



Then there's an absolute contradiction in cannon (*gasp* a contradiction???).  200 Gigtons is complete overkill for a small town.  The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was 12-15 _kilotons_ [].


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

But was it completely vaporized? No? Hmm...


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> I wrote an essay on it for a religion class, it's one of my favorite movies.  That being said, I don't remember anything to indicate that Star Destroyer had been damaged.



[YOUTUBE]UN8YIR60Ij0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]22zKqtD8BKw[/YOUTUBE]

Same captain of the same Star-Destroyer dies. Shields were down, as was explained in the TESB novel. Asteroid was over 200 meters in diameter hitting it at near relatavistic speeds.



> Even if a "small town by SW standards" is something like 5-10x larger than one by our standards (ignoring towns like Mos Eisley which _are_ town sized), that still puts the fire-power of Star Destroyers light years below the figures you're claiming.



Stop with this bull. Multi-megaton figures were observed by anti-starfighter batteries for Star Destroyers at most conservative figures in the film. Those are several orders of magnitude below what they should be, and they don't compare to the rest of the mid and heavy guns. More to the point the ICS and technical commenataries are completely canon for the films.



> The exact quote is:
> 
> You're the one who needs to stop messing with context.  Turbo-lasers are started by a G-cannon source to be town level, nothing more.



Vague quote indicates nothing.

No indication of yield or class of turbolaser batteries or the types being used. Again stop with your ad naseum argument those were not stated to be MLT or HLT batteries. And the narration indicates its more than likely those were starfighters since we know they're capabilities.

Your argument is groundless.



> Can't remember the exact quote.  I'm trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible, so could you repeat this point?  Thanks.



Oh you mean wings of fighters dropping thermonuclear bombs well beyond 12 teratons on both Imperial and Rebel capital ships and not doing shit.


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

Han Solo said:


> You do realize that even with Warp 9, it's still take around 100 years to travel across the galaxy right?
> 
> That's really not that fast.



Considering that voyager was able to travel at warp 9.75 sustainably, and that warp 9-warp ten is an insane infinite exponential scale where warp 10 results in INFINITE velocity, I don't think thats a problem.

Warp 9.75 was quoted as 4 billion miles per second, warp 9.76 was over 10.
And speeds of warp 9.9 and warp 10 have been achioeved in canon star trek, though warp 10 resulted in the hyper evolution of the crew, so its not really a wise idea.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Rice Ball said:


> Sure, it doesn't have to be when your dog fighting at that speed.
> 
> Any G-canon forces shown a star destroying attacking a target while traveling via hyperspace?



Except that nothing in Star Trek has ever fought in combat during Warp speeds. And in the RoTJ novel, dozens of troop transport ships were being kamikazed into Star-Destroyers packed with bombs and nuclear devices and they didn't accomplish shit against their shields.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Then there's an absolute contradiction in cannon (*gasp* a contradiction???).  200 Gigtons is complete overkill for a small town.  The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was 12-15 _kilotons_ [].



Lol. It didn't even come near to actually vaporizing Hiroshima.

Regardless, we have an actual numbers here backed up by Lucas Film. It's the best indication of getting an accurate and acepted figure, but if you want to just ignore it and post some load of rubbish, be my guest.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

Ork said:


> Considering that voyager was able to travel at warp 9.75 sustainably, and that warp 9-warp ten is an insane infinite exponential scale where warp 10 results in INFINITE velocity, I don't think thats a problem.



No one takes the newt episode seriously, not even the writers. Warp 13+ in All Good Things says hi.


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> No one takes the newt episode seriously, not even the writers. Warp 13+ in All Good Things says hi.



That was after a new scale was invented wher warp 14 was actually below warp 10 on the old scale. Doesnt matter if the episode is taken seriously or not, its cannon, Lucas made Star wars as a side project that he never took seriously, at least until it sold like the godamn blue blazes.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2009)

Ork said:


> *Considering that voyager was able to travel at warp 9.75 sustainably*, and that warp 9-warp ten is an insane infinite exponential scale where warp 10 results in INFINITE velocity, I don't think thats a problem.
> 
> Warp 9.75 was quoted as 4 billion miles per second, warp 9.76 was over 10.
> And speeds of warp 9.9 and warp 10 have been achioeved in canon star trek, though warp 10 resulted in the hyper evolution of the crew, so its not really a wise idea.



I didn't know that.

Oh and if anyone wants to know actual canon numbers on warp speed:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

Han Solo said:


> I didn't know that.
> 
> Oh and if anyone wants to know actual canon numbers on warp speed:
> 
> ...



Nice post, +rep, but as I already said, Once the borg capture one Hyperdive capable ship, even if its a tiny freighter docked at a planet unmanned, the speed advantage of the GE is gone.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

The Borg would never capture any Imperial vessel. The difference in firepower between Star Trek top-tier civilizations and Star War's is astronomical.

If a Star-Destroyer stumbled upon the Unimatrix center of the Borg civilization, they would simply approach it, with their shields down, doign their typical spiel. A barrage would vaporize an armada of them.


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> The Borg would never capture any Imperial vessel. The difference in firepower between Star Trek top-tier civilizations and Star War's is astronomical.
> 
> If a Star-Destroyer stumbled upon the Unimatrix center of the Borg civilization, they would simply approach it, with their shields down, doign their typical spiel. A barrage would vaporize an armada of them.



  Thats just being ignorant. Not all ships in the GE verse are armed, nor are they all shielded or prepared and again, you havent proven to my satisfaction, that the chronically inaccurate numbers used to guess the weapon power of GE guns vs Star wars guns are correct.

And anyway, having twenty trillion bazillion gigatons of firepower per nanosecond versus 30 kilotons, doesnt matter, beacuse if its ignoring your shields, either number will annihilate you quite handily, and suprise suprise, a lot of ST verse races can ignore shields.

As I said, Guns don't even come into the equation in this conflict. 
Read my other post earlier if you didn't.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Except that nothing in Star Trek has ever fought in combat during Warp speeds. And in the RoTJ novel, dozens of troop transport ships were being kamikazed into Star-Destroyers packed with bombs and nuclear devices and they didn't accomplish shit against their shields.



You said this before, i provided the information of which episode shows them fighting at warp speed.

Watch Voyager:Scorpion


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 8, 2009)

Ork said:


> That was after a new scale was invented wher warp 14 was actually below warp 10 on the old scale. Doesnt matter if the episode is taken seriously or not, its cannon,


Ok look, Warp 13 doesn't exist on the new scale. Ships have used Warp 13 and not had the newt issue. There is no reason in Star Trek for Warp 13 to be slower than Warp 10, nor a reason to try once they reached warp 10. That whole episode made no sense and rightly gets ignored by everyone.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Rice Ball said:


> You said this before, i provided the information of which episode shows them fighting at warp speed.
> 
> Watch Voyager:Scorpion



I have and that never happened. This was addressed on SD.net several times during their various many ST vs SW threads in the vs sub-forum.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> [YOUTUBE]UN8YIR60Ij0[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]22zKqtD8BKw[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Same captain of the same Star-Destroyer dies. Shields were down, as was explained in the TESB novel. Asteroid was over 200 meters in diameter hitting it at near relatavistic speeds.



Hm... definitely looks to me like the dude from the first video (whose SD was hit) is the dude in the middle on the second video, _not _the guy on his right who disappears after the SD is destroyed.  Not the same ship.




> Stop with this bull. Multi-megaton figures were observed by anti-starfighter batteries for Star Destroyers at most conservative figures in the film. Those are several orders of magnitude below what they should be, and they don't compare to the rest of the mid and heavy guns. More to the point the ICS and technical commenataries are completely canon for the films.



The problem is that you're completely basing everything off of technical manuals, rather than actual feats in primary cannon.  Give me some valid calcs on weapons yield in the films or books and we'll talk.



> Vague quote indicates nothing.
> 
> No indication of yield or class of turbolaser batteries or the types being used. Again stop with your ad naseum argument those were not stated to be MLT or HLT batteries. And the narration indicates its more than likely those were starfighters since we know they're capabilities.
> 
> Your argument is groundless.



In the very next sentence the author refers to the planoids in the sky being the capitol ships.  It's extremely likely therefore that he is referring to the capitol ship's weaponry and not the star fighters'.



> Oh you mean wings of fighters dropping thermonuclear bombs well beyond 12 teratons on both Imperial and Rebel capital ships and not doing shit.



Again, basing everything off of technical manuals rather than feats.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 8, 2009)

We've been through this before.

Find that other thread, i listed the exact time.
It basically happened when the 2 Bio ships were chasing voyager. They caught up to it and fired at it while at warp.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> But was it completely vaporized? No? Hmm...



Pretty close:


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Hm... definitely looks to me like the dude from the first video (whose SD was hit) is the dude in the middle on the second video, _not _the guy on his right who disappears after the SD is destroyed.  Not the same ship.



It's the same fucking Captain, it's referenced in the novel as the same Star-Destroyer hit by the Ion Cannon. 



> The problem is that you're completely basing everything off of technical manuals, rather than actual feats in primary cannon.  Give me some valid calcs on weapons yield in the films or books and we'll talk.



No I am not.

Anti-starfighter batteries in the TESB film with asteroids. Quotes from the RoTJ novel. 

Hell rebel starfighter blaster cannons were doing megaton to kiloton damage inside of the Death Star II in the RoTJ novel.

And ignorning the rest of EU that supports these firepower levels and beyond.



> In the very next sentence the author refers to the planoids in the sky being the capitol ships.  It's extremely likely therefore that he is referring to the capitol ship's weaponry and not the star fighters'.



That was the size indication for the capital ships since this the novel that starts the Empire's rise with those titantic sized ships. 



> Again, basing everything off of technical manuals rather than feats.



That was directly from the RoTJ novel.

Do I need to shove the clip of the Slave 1 blasting a dozen+ kilometers of moon to house sized asteroids into space dust with its sesmic mines and blaster cannons?


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> It's the same fucking Captain, it's referenced in the novel as the same Star-Destroyer hit by the Ion Cannon.



Go to :20 in the first vid and 1:09 in the second.  The same guy who says, "our first catch of the day" is the same guy who continues to talk after the other SD is destroyed.  If you can give me quotes from the novel that say otherwise, go on ahead, but movies trump all other SW cannon.


> No I am not.
> 
> Anti-starfighter batteries in the TESB film with asteroids. Quotes from the RoTJ novel.
> 
> ...



Let's see 'em quotes.



> That was the size indication for the capital ships since this the novel that starts the Empire's rise with those titantic sized ships.



I know.  And it was stated right after talking about ships having turbolasers that could "vaporize a small town", ie. the same ships.




> That was directly from the RoTJ novel.
> 
> Do I need to shove the clip of the Slave 1 blasting a dozen+ kilometers of moon to house sized asteroids into space dust with its sesmic mines and blaster cannons?



Slave I destroyed a few asteroids roughly its size, and shaved chunks off of some larger ones.  The missile made a big flashy explosion, but didn't seem to cause much collateral damage.  No asteroid in there is anywhere close to moon sized.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Go to :20 in the first vid and 1:09 in the second.  The same guy who says, "our first catch of the day" is the same guy who continues to talk after the other SD is destroyed.  If you can give me quotes from the novel that say otherwise, go on ahead, but movies trump all other SW cannon.



Wrong again. Not the same guy. The one that dies is the one next to Needa, who got executed by Vader.



> Let's see 'em quotes.





			
				Return of the Jedi novelization said:
			
		

> "We've added power to the forward shield, Admiral."
> 
> "Good. Double power on the main battery, and-"
> 
> Suddenly the Star Cruiser was rocked by thermonuclear fireworks outside the observation window.



That was from a gunboat or missileboat. Derp.



> I know.  And it was stated right after talking about ships having turbolasers that could "vaporize a small town", ie. the same ships.



No it doesn't. It goes on to talk about starfighters being the "gnats" that those turbolasers were tracking. And capital ships do not use their main or heavy turrets to attack starfighters. 

Again evidence from A New Hope when turbolaser turrets were to slow to traverse their own axis to hit starfighters in the film.



> Slave I destroyed a few asteroids roughly its size, and shaved chunks off of some larger ones.  The missile made a big flashy explosion, but didn't seem to cause much collateral damage.  No asteroid in there is anywhere close to moon sized.



Wrong again buddy. Those big asteroids scaled against the Slave 1 were as large as mid-size planetoids or moons. And the sesmic charges and mines covered multiple kilometers shredding them. And the missile/torpedo put out megaton level energy.


----------



## Ork (May 8, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Ok look, Warp 13 doesn't exist on the new scale. Ships have used Warp 13 and not had the newt issue. There is no reason in Star Trek for Warp 13 to be slower than Warp 10, nor a reason to try once they reached warp 10. That whole episode made no sense and rightly gets ignored by everyone.




"Plots involving the _Enterprise_ traveling far too rapidly were a frequent feature in the original series (such as warp 14.1 in That Which Survives), and for _The Next Generation_, it was decided that these would no longer be featured. A new warp scale was drawn up, with warp factor 10 set as an unattainable maximum. This is described in some technical manuals as _Eugene's Limit_, in homage to creator/producer Gene Roddenberry. (The old and new formulas are explained in detail below).
 The warp factors above warp 10 in the _TOS_, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale, which reaches an asymptote at warp 10, representing infinite velocity in accordance with the limit imposed by the producers. The _Star Trek: Voyager_ episode "Threshold" concurred with this: the characters ruled that reaching the velocity of warp 10 was impossible — in spite of this, they went on to achieve the velocity,
Plots involving the _Enterprise_ traveling far too rapidly were a frequent feature in the original series (such as warp 14.1 in That Which Survives), and for _The Next Generation_, it was decided that these would no longer be featured. A new warp scale was drawn up, with warp factor 10 set as an unattainable maximum. This is described in some technical manuals as _Eugene's Limit_, in homage to creator/producer Gene Roddenberry. (The old and new formulas are explained in detail below).
 The warp factors above warp 10 in the _TOS_, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale, which reaches an asymptote at warp 10, representing infinite velocity in accordance with the limit imposed by the producers. The _Star Trek: Voyager_ episode "Threshold" concurred with this: the characters ruled that reaching the velocity of warp 10 was impossible — in spite of this, they went on to achieve the velocity."


Essentially, Warp 10 has been reached, and it was infinite velocity.
Saying you don't take it seriously, doesn't make it any less canon.
And yes, warp 10 is faster than Warp 14.1 on the old scale, because its infinite speed, and 14.1 isnt.

Don't take it seriously if you like, it'll still be canon.

Also, Borg Transwarp Conduits allow velocities approaching 20 times warp speed. So the Speed advantage of the GE isnt really... all that much of an advantage.


----------



## enzymeii (May 8, 2009)

TWF said:


> Wrong again. Not the same guy. The one that dies is the one next to Needa, who got executed by Vader.



Deny it all you want, bottom line is that there's no cannon evidence that a SD bridge can withstand a direct hit from an asteroid.




> That was from a gunboat or missileboat. Derp.



Still not seein' any evidence of multi-megaton yields.



> No it doesn't. It goes on to talk about starfighters being the "gnats" that those turbolasers were tracking. And capital ships do not use their main or heavy turrets to attack starfighters.



A SD's main gun probably is more powerful than it's standard turbolasers, but it's far below the gigaton yields that you're citing.




> Wrong again buddy. Those big asteroids scaled against the Slave 1 were *as large as mid-size planetoids or moons*. And the sesmic charges and mines covered multiple kilometers shredding them. And the missile/torpedo put out megaton level energy.



wtf  Some of them look to be large ship size, but Slave 1 never outright destroyed any of those.  It's best showing was blowing apart some house sized rocks, I'm not sure where you're getting _planetoid_ sized meteors from.


----------



## Gig (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> A SD's main gun probably is more powerful than it's standard turbolasers, but it's far below the gigaton yields that you're citing.


An Acclamator I-class Assault Transport has Quad Turbo laser turrets that can fire 200 Gigaton blasts per-shot it has 12 of these meaning it can fire volleys rated at 2400 Gigaton (2.4 Teratons) 

There are no ships in Startrek that are even remotely close to that kind of firepower


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Deny it all you want, bottom line is that there's no cannon evidence that a SD bridge can withstand a direct hit from an asteroid.



The only person here denying evidence is you. And we saw in the film that other Star Destroyers hit by larger asteroids didn't do shit to them. So please, dispensing with Occham's Razor indicates otherwise when both the novel and film support me and not you.



> Still not seein' any evidence of multi-megaton yields.



Not my problem when wings of starfighters and plenty of squadrons of attack crafts and fighters were raiding Imperial and Alliance capital ships all the same with nuclear devices and megaton/kiloton anti-cap measures.



> A SD's main gun probably is more powerful than it's standard turbolasers, but it's far below the gigaton yields that you're citing.



Which is why 100+ meter iron-nickel solid asteroids are instanteously vaporized by guns's 125 times smaller than those MLT's, much less the football size quad-turrets. Or the fact their reactors produced more energy than stars and are directly hard plugged to the generators and reactors of the ship.

Your concession is again accepted.



> wtf  Some of them look to be large ship size, but Slave 1 never outright destroyed any of those.  It's best showing was blowing apart some house sized rocks, I'm not sure where you're getting _planetoid_ sized meteors from.



Those were asteroids, not meteors. And if you think it destroyed a couple of "large ship size rocks" then your in the same category of people who think a SSD is under 9 kilometers. 

Your concession is accepted to this entire argument when you have skewed evidence, and took quotes out of context.

Continued from Revenge of the Sith novel.



> The skies of Coruscant blaze with war.
> 
> The artificial daylight spread by the capital's oribtal mirrors is sliced by intersecting flames of ion drives and punctuated by starburst explosions; contrails of debris raining into the atmosphere become tangled ribbons ofcloud. The nightside sky is an infinite lattice of shinning hairlines that interlock planetoids and *track erratic spirals of glowing gnat.* Beings watching from rooftops of Coruscant's endless cityscape can find it beautiful.
> 
> ...



Derp, talking about turbolasers targeting starfighters.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

500 Federation warships can equal the firepower of a single medium-size turbolaser of an Imperial-class Star-Destroyer. 



			
				SD.net said:
			
		

> 812 million terajoules? Congradulations, you have equal one turbolaser! Increase it two orders of magnitude and you can take down a Acclamator!


----------



## strongarm85 (May 8, 2009)

Trying to compare Star Trek ships to Star Wars ships is like comparing the Farmer with the shotgun to Radditz.


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

B-bbbbbutt one single inconsistancy in firepower makes Star Wars weak.


----------



## strongarm85 (May 8, 2009)

That's like saying Super Saiyen Goku is weak because during one of the filler episodes before the fight with Cell, Krillin threw a rock at Goku's head while he was sleeping and it left a knot on his head.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (May 8, 2009)

So what's the argument of the Trek side?


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

1.) Asteroids take out Star-Destroyers: ignorning evidence that same ISD was hit by two blasts of that heavy Ion Cannon under Echo Base's control.

2.) Despite the impressive shownings of the Slave 1 in AoTC and the statements of the ICS and Technical Commentaries, supposedly GE warships are under "megaton" firepower ranges.


----------



## Bill G (May 8, 2009)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> So what's the argument of the Trek side?



Mostly the borg in the beginning, but it seemed to quiet down a bit 

edit:



TWF said:


> 1.) Asteroids take out Star-Destroyers: ignorning evidence that same ISD was hit by two blasts of that heavy Ion Cannon under Echo Base's control.
> 
> 2.) Despite the impressive shownings of the Slave 1 in AoTC and the statements of the ICS and Technical Commentaries, supposedly GE warships are under "megaton" firepower ranges.



This, too


----------



## Slips (May 8, 2009)

Should of made the thread without restrictions then we can just Say Q clicks his fingers and the thread gets locked after 2 posts 

Would of saved a lot of boring shit being spouted

Anyway my sig has tits fuck your billions of calculations and stare at the cartoon tits


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Q sucks balls though.


----------



## Slips (May 8, 2009)

Q clicks his fingers and your sucking his balls


----------



## Fang (May 8, 2009)

Fang Force-Chokes a Q.


----------



## Slips (May 8, 2009)

Q farts the force


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (May 9, 2009)

Slips said:


> Should of made the thread without restrictions then we can just Say Q clicks his fingers and the thread gets locked after 2 posts
> 
> Would of saved a lot of boring shit being spouted


Q is worthy of doing it.


> Anyway my sig has tits fuck your billions of calculations and stare at the cartoon tits


If those tits can indeed withstand 10^32 joules, I may have to concede the deadpool debate. Also, Force crush the inflatable bosoms.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> Coming from you?



Yeah, now you really know it's bad. :eyeroll 



> Evidence supported by the films? Check.



Uncheck.  Unless you've got the actual evidence.



> Calculations done by Mike Wong, Conner Mcloud and others? Check.



Try feats, not calcs.



> Not against plasma.
> Not against kinetic force and energy.
> Not against tactics a chimpanzee could recongize.



Are you saying the SW shields the Borg would assimilate can't defend against kinetic force and plasma?



> Bender Ninja proving he doesn't know the difference between planetary destruction and planet busting.



No, I'm just saying that, if a normal power generator on a ISD makes more power than a star, there would be no need for the Death Star.  A simple hypermatter bomb, would do the trick.  The power of a star is plenty enough to completely destroy a planet.  So, either the Imperials are morons, or they _don't_ have generators that produce more power than stars.

BTW, whenever ISDs have exploded, there haven't been supernova-level explosions.



> Because pulling this technology out their ass is something the Borg have done before right.


 
Assimilating technology that is already there is indeed something the Borg have done time and time again.




TWF said:


> A severely weakened Star-Destroyer still suffering damage from Echo Base's Ion Cannon.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]UN8YIR60Ij0[/YOUTUBE]
> [YOUTUBE]22zKqtD8BKw[/YOUTUBE]
> Same captain of the same Star-Destroyer dies. Shields were down, as was explained in the TESB novel. Asteroid was over 200 meters in diameter hitting it at near relatavistic speeds.



Bullshit.  Even if the captain is the same (which is highly suspect, due to the murky hologram projector), the ion cannon didn't just take out shields; it took out weapons and engines.  Obviously the engines are back online, so the effect must have worn off.


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Yeah, now you really know it's bad. :eyeroll



Oh boy, Bender Ninja getting tough.



> Uncheck.  Unless you've got the actual evidence.



Complain more. The calculations from the light guns in the asteroid belt scenes with the Star Destroyers put them at Poe's calculatiopns above 180 megatons.



> Try feats, not calcs.



Hi asteroid belt destruction. Hi Jango Fett's Slave 1's sesmic charges causing more destruction then the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



> Are you saying the SW shields the Borg would assimilate can't defend against kinetic force and plasma?



Are you saying the Borg are tactically intelligent enough defeat a race that could beat entire fleets of it while they approach targets with their shields down all the time?



> No, I'm just saying that, if a normal power generator on a ISD makes more power than a star, there would be no need for the Death Star.



Wrong.  



> A simple hypermatter bomb, would do the trick.  The power of a star is plenty enough to completely destroy a planet.  So, either the Imperials are morons, or they _don't_ have generators that produce more power than stars.



Obviously if you posted this on SD.net you would've been eaten alive for it. 

Why the fuck would they need hypermatter bombs when the energy produced by the Hypermatter Annihilator reactors gives them the ability to do so much more? 

They produce hundreds of terraton barrages per second for Base-Delta-Zero operations, high megaton level weapons for light turbolasers and anti-starfighter batteries and double to triple digit megaton torpedos and missiles.



> BTW, whenever ISDs have exploded, there haven't been supernova-level explosions.



Style over substance fallacy. When Star-Destroyers explode, as the original novels for the films point out, they produce supernovas, and high level thermonuclear blasts. 



> Assimilating technology that is already there is indeed something the Borg have done time and time again.



So you conceed again that your making shit up.



> Bullshit.  Even if the captain is the same (which is highly suspect, due to the murky hologram projector), the ion cannon didn't just take out shields; it took out weapons and engines.  Obviously the engines are back online, so the effect must have worn off.



Yes, it is same nameless Captain that is killed. 

Anyway it took two to three shots to put down the Star-Destroyer from a Ion-Cannon that was powered by a reactor meant for a warship in the same class as the Executor. 

And in less than a half an hour a Star-Destroyer can get its propulsion and weapon systems back online.

Either way, stop compounding the evidence that the only damaged Star-Destroyer is likely the only one to be destroyed by a 200+ meter asteroid hitting its damaged bridge deflectors.

Which is why Piett brought up the damage being wrought in a fucking massive asteroid belt pounding the shields and armor of their ships constantly. HURR HURR


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

Even a 10 meter sized asteroid hitting the docking shields of a Star Destroyer in TESB, would have the kinetic energy of 2 x 10^12 joules. The derived lower limit is well above 100 kilotons with nuclear torpedos and thermonuclear devices that are weaker than the light guns of a Star Destroyer.  

And even flashes of the own turbolaser fire from the heavy dual and quad turrets trying to tag the Falcon were at least, by scaling, above 260 terajoules; which impacted Needa's own Star-Destroyer.. 

So again fucking lol at bringing up Star Destroyer shields being weak when they constantly were tanking a rain of multi-megaton impacts from 20 to 300+ meter size asteroids.

And just for kicks: the 70 meter+ sized asteroid that took out the bridge tower of the Star-Destroyer in question would have kinetic energy well in excess of E > 5 x 10^14 joules. 

So Star Trek isn't doing jackshit.


----------



## enzymeii (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> Even a 10 meter sized asteroid hitting the docking shields of a Star Destroyer in TESB, would have the kinetic energy of 2 x 10^12 joules. The derived lower limit is well above 100 kilotons with nuclear torpedos and thermonuclear devices that are weaker than the light guns of a Star Destroyer.
> 
> And even flashes of the own turbolaser fire from the heavy dual and quad turrets trying to tag the Falcon were at least, by scaling, above 260 terajoules; which impacted Needa's own Star-Destroyer..
> 
> ...



Star Trek shits on asteroids:




Additionally, in that episode they had expected to _vaporize_ that asteroid, but it was full of artificial alloys and machinery that someone else had placed inside.


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

In four hours a combined fleet of Federation and Romulan vessels (around 30 warships) couldn't do to the mantle of a planet in under an hour what a single Star Destroyer did in a BDZ.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> Complain more. The calculations from the light guns in the asteroid belt scenes with the Star Destroyers put them at Poe's calculatiopns above 180 megatons.



What makes you think they are light guns?



> Hi asteroid belt destruction. Hi Jango Fett's Slave 1's sesmic charges causing more destruction then the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Ok, photon torpedoes are better than nuclear fission (and fusion) bombs, too.  Your point?



> Are you saying the Borg are tactically intelligent enough defeat a race that could beat entire fleets of it while they approach targets with their shields down all the time?



Tactics have nothing to do with the ability to assimilate technology.  So no, I am not saying that.  I am saying they may be technologically intelligent enough.



> Obviously if you posted this on SD.net you would've been eaten alive for it.



Like I care about SD.net.



> Why the fuck would they need hypermatter bombs when the energy produced by the Hypermatter Annihilator reactors gives them the ability to do so much more?



The power greater than a star is well enough to destroy a planet.  Would you disagree?

If you agree, then the question is "Why would they need the Death Star"?  The Death Star provides little advantage, let alone little reason for the hype.  If the Empire already could destroy planets (and likely the Death Star itself) with a simple hypermatter bomb, why would they call it "The ultimate power in the universe"?



> They produce hundreds of terraton barrages per second for Base-Delta-Zero operations, high megaton level weapons for light turbolasers and anti-starfighter batteries and double to triple digit megaton torpedos and missiles



So?  Our modern society uses nuclear power to both make bombs and power submarines and aircraft carriers.  Why would the Empire do any different?  Oh wait, maybe they _don't_ have the technology to make as much power as a star.



> Style over substance fallacy. When Star-Destroyers explode, as the original novels for the films point out, they produce supernovas, and high level thermonuclear blasts.



Tell that to the SSD that crashed into the second Death Star.  Endor would not be their anymore, much less the Death Star and the fleet. 



> So you conceed again that your making shit up.



Are you implying that the Borg haven't assimilated technology?




> Yes, it is same nameless Captain that is killed.



Sorry, not buying it.



> Anyway it took two to three shots to put down the Star-Destroyer from a Ion-Cannon that was powered by a reactor meant for a warship in the same class as the Executor.
> 
> And in less than a half an hour a Star-Destroyer can get its propulsion and weapon systems back online.



Ok.



> Either way, stop compounding the evidence that the only damaged Star-Destroyer is likely the only one to be destroyed by a 200+ meter asteroid hitting its damaged bridge deflectors.



You have no proof.  Little evidenc that it's the same ship, and no evidence that it was still damaged from the ion blast.



> Which is why Piett brought up the damage being wrought in a fucking massive asteroid belt pounding the shields and armor of their ships constantly. HURR HURR



Ok.



TWF said:


> Even a 10 meter sized asteroid hitting the docking shields of a Star Destroyer in TESB, would have the kinetic energy of 2 x 10^12 joules. The derived lower limit is well above 100 kilotons with nuclear torpedos and thermonuclear devices that are weaker than the light guns of a Star Destroyer.



Tell that to the bridge that got destroyed.



> And even flashes of the own turbolaser fire from the heavy dual and quad turrets trying to tag the Falcon were at least, by scaling, above 260 terajoules; which impacted Needa's own Star-Destroyer..



Wait, how did it impact Needa's SD?



> So again fucking lol at bringing up Star Destroyer shields being weak when they constantly were tanking a rain of multi-megaton impacts from 20 to 300+ meter size asteroids.
> 
> And just for kicks: the 70 meter+ sized asteroid that took out the bridge tower of the Star-Destroyer in question would have kinetic energy well in excess of E > 5 x 10^14 joules.
> 
> So Star Trek isn't doing jackshit.



They had shields and point defense going, but they were still taking damage to the point where Piett was thinking Vader to be crazy.  It wasn't a walk in the park for the fleet. 



TWF said:


> In four hours a combined fleet of Federation and Romulan vessels (around 30 warships) couldn't do to the mantle of a planet in under an hour what a single Star Destroyer did in a BDZ.



As I recall, the Romulan fleet destroyed 30% of a planet's crust in one volley...

Let me make myself clear, I am in no way saying ST wins.  SW has a clear advantage.  But the notion that it would take two and a half weeks for hundreds of Federation ships to take down and ISD's shields is absurd.


----------



## Ork (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> In four hours a combined fleet of Federation and Romulan vessels (around 30 warships) couldn't do to the mantle of a planet in under an hour what a single Star Destroyer did in a BDZ.



I said it before I'll say it again, 12 trillion Giga Hyper MEga super uber duper duper joules

or 1 gigajoule, both result in the same level of destruction to a ship without shields, and as this is a collaboration of all ST races, shield ignoring tech is all over the place, on top of that, your ship can be as powerful as it wants, when one side has the ability to teleport instakill weaponry onto another ship, while completely invisible, that ship is going to win.

Basically, all the empire has going for it is speed, shielding, and weapons power, assuming that all these rather banal calculations that contradict themselves so often its not funny are correct anyway.

The ST verse has cloaking, assimilation, Transporting, matter replication/creation, Shield piercing, time travel, matter phasing, instant cloning, Intelligent ship design, Adaption... the number of advantages is endless, the star trek verse has too much history to call on, its not based on 6 movies, its so many series and such, that really, SW is getting crapped on.

Borg adaption does NOT WORK on the theory that 'having strong enough weapons will break through it'
THey adapt their shielding to make enemy weapons fire innefective against their shields, they don't reduce the damage, they NEGATE it.




also, if we're going to use technical manuals.

_In _Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual_ a figure of 1,5kg of antimatter is given as the maximum warhead material of a photon torpedo. (pg. 129) Using standard physics calculations a direct 1:1 explosion would equal to about 64 megatons. Warhead materials are however premixed to achieves the level of destructive force of an antimatter pod rupture containing 100 cubic meters of antideuterium. (pg. 69) Antimatter is stored as liquid or slush on starships. (pg. 68) Density of mere liquid antideuterium is around 160 kg per cubic meter. According to this comparison the high annihilation rate energy release would be comparable to about 690 gigatons. 
_
Basically, a Photon Torpedo released 690 gigatons of energy on impact, not including mass and velocity, just energy from the reaction, And Quantum Torpedoes release exactly DOUBLE that.
Whats this shit about SW verse ships having a massive weaponry advantage over Star trekships?

When the fucking Federation, which is a JOKE by the way, has weapons on Par with the SW verse, you know something is going on. A borg Cube was able to fight and defeat over FIFTY ships using Photon Torps etc, and there are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS Of them.

During the Voyager episode Scorpion, The borg designed a bomb that had a 5 million Isoton Yield, its notable that a 54 isoton bomb destroyed a planet, and that 'multikinetic neutronic mine with a five million isonton yield. Tuvok notes that this would affect an entire star system.'

Really, if you're going to say that manuals are more canon than what we see in the show, we can use that too.


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (May 9, 2009)

This is one of the gayest threads I've ever seen on this fucking section

Gayer than a pink rainbow vomiting unicorn


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (May 9, 2009)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpoomycJFIQ[/YOUTUBE]

Those twins represent this thread


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (May 9, 2009)

And stop with the walls of text you homos

This debate has been beaten more than a woman from the Lifetime channel and it's fucking tiresome


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

I was just here to correct Darth Ruin in thinking Trek had a chance (I didn't really think they did, until Ork's last post.)  Then TWF came in claiming a Trek fleet would take two and a half weeks to take down an ISD's shields.  I will not tolerate that.

Mainly SW's advantage is FTL and ship size.  An SSD could probably solo the Federation fleet.  I wouldn't give the same chances to and ISD, though it would take down quite a few ships.  To Trek's advantage, though, is sublight speed.  Trek ships can fly circles around ISDs.  A good strategy for Trek would be to get under an ISD, away from the heavy turbolasers, and chuck torpedoes into that wide open hangar bay.


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> What makes you think they are light guns?



Lol. Because those tiny trench guns are obviously anti-capital ship weapons. 



> Ok, photon torpedoes are better than nuclear fission (and fusion) bombs, too.  Your point?



Dead wrong. 



> Tactics have nothing to do with the ability to assimilate technology.  So no, I am not saying that.  I am saying they may be technologically intelligent enough.



Considering the only viable answer from you or the other guy was " DUR ASSIMILATE CIVILIAN SHIPS " cop-out arguments prove without a doubt you have nothing here.



> Like I care about SD.net.



So you do conceed that canon calculations off the film by Curtis Saxton are what your complaining about and have not a single thing to contradict other than saying " no wrong"?

Good to know.



> The power greater than a star is well enough to destroy a planet.  Would you disagree?



It's not like the majority of the power is used for shielding and propulsion as well as firepower. 

Your concession is again accepted.



> If you agree, then the question is "Why would they need the Death Star"?  The Death Star provides little advantage, let alone little reason for the hype.  If the Empire already could destroy planets (and likely the Death Star itself) with a simple hypermatter bomb, why would they call it "The ultimate power in the universe"?



Fallacy of Composition. 

Star Destroyers destroy planetary surfaces, atmospheres, mantle and crust. A Death Star vaporizes planets.

If your going to try and manipulate semantic arguments, your obviously grasping at straws here.



> So?  Our modern society uses nuclear power to both make bombs and power submarines and aircraft carriers.  Why would the Empire do any different?  Oh wait, maybe they _don't_ have the technology to make as much power as a star.



:snorlax:



> Tell that to the SSD that crashed into the second Death Star.  Endor would not be their anymore, much less the Death Star and the fleet.



Yes a 19km SSD that created a thermonuclear blast that destablized the Death Star II that was already reeling from nuclear blasts going on in it from the attacks of the Falcon and other rebel starfighters.

Are you really that ignorant?



> Are you implying that the Borg haven't assimilated technology?



Tell me how the Borg are going to beat a civilization that has an entire galaxy's industry and technology under their control, and approach vessels, regardless of class and designation, without any shields in linear fashions.

Please, tell me.



> Sorry, not buying it.



:**snorlax:



> You have no proof.  Little evidenc that it's the same ship, and no evidence that it was still damaged from the ion blast.



Too bad we observed the Ion Cannon firing multiple times before cutting cut to different scenes for the Rebel evacuation of Echo Base.

You are worse than Wesely when it comes to FTL comm scans and sensor ranges. 



> Tell that to the bridge that got destroyed.



Already addressed.



> Wait, how did it impact Needa's SD?



Yes, please tell me why turbolaser fire from Needa's own ship was exploding against it's hull. Unless asteroids have turbolsers now.



> They had shields and point defense going, but they were still taking damage to the point where Piett was thinking Vader to be crazy.  It wasn't a walk in the park for the fleet.



Already addressed that in the TESB and recent Vader novel that there was a "hail of steady rain of asteroids impacting" all of the ships in Death Squadron pursing the Falcon in the Hoth asteroid field. Already proven that multi-megaton impacts from hundreds to thousands of asteroids impacting against the hull and shields that the gunners couldn't cover was the reason why the ships got damaged.



> Let me make myself clear, I am in no way saying ST wins.  SW has a clear advantage.  But the notion that it would take two and a half weeks for hundreds of Federation ships to take down and ISD's shields is absurd.



It's too bad it's true from film evidence.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> Lol. Because those tiny trench guns are obviously anti-capital ship weapons.



The trench guns weren't the only ones firing.



> Dead wrong.



"A photon torpedo with a 25 isoton yield can destroy an entire city within seconds."



Also see the feat enzymeii posted of Voyager's torpedo destroying an asteroid.



> Considering the only viable answer from you or the other guy was " DUR ASSIMILATE CIVILIAN SHIPS " cop-out arguments prove without a doubt you have nothing here.



I never brought up "assimilate civilian ships".  (In fact the Borg are on more even ground with SW when it comes to FTL.)  I am just saying, the Borg drones should be able to assimilate personal shielding technology and adapt to blaster technology.  I'm not saying they would beat the empire.



> So you do conceed that canon calculations off the film by Curtis Saxton are what your complaining about and have not a single thing to contradict other than saying " no wrong"?
> 
> Good to know.



Nah, just saying I don't care about SD.net.  You really like straw men and claiming I said or suggested things I never did.



> It's not like the majority of the power is used for shielding and propulsion as well as firepower.
> 
> Your concession is again accepted.



I couldn't care less about how hypermatter is used on ISDs.  My question is, do you think the power of a star is enough to completely destroy a planet?  Answer the damn question.



> Fallacy of Composition.
> 
> Star Destroyers destroy planetary surfaces, atmospheres, mantle and crust. A Death Star vaporizes planets.
> 
> If your going to try and manipulate semantic arguments, your obviously grasping at straws here.



Again, I am not talking about ISDs and how they work.  I am talking about their power source.  Are Imperial scientists really dense enough to not think to take the power core out of an ISD and make a bomb with it?



> :snorlax:



Oh, they're about as bright as a Snorlax.  Good to know.



> Yes a 19km SSD that created a thermonuclear blast that destablized the Death Star II that was already reeling from nuclear blasts going on in it from the attacks of the Falcon and other rebel starfighters.
> 
> Are you really that ignorant?



Sure, it was a thermonuclear blast.  Sure, it was big.  I'm not doubting that.  I'm saying, that if the power of a star was really in there, the explosion would have been a _lot_ bigger.  But it wasn't, as evidenced by the fact that Endor is still in one piece with a habitable surface.




> Tell me how the Borg are going to beat a civilization that has an entire galaxy's industry and technology under their control, and approach vessels, regardless of class and designation, without any shields in linear fashions.
> 
> Please, tell me.



I'm not saying they will.  Will you stop it with the straw man?  I'm just saying the Borg would be able to assimilate a good amount of Imperial technology to even the playing field.



> Too bad we observed the Ion Cannon firing multiple times before cutting cut to different scenes for the Rebel evacuation of Echo Base.



Yes, we did.  That's not evidence that the ship was still damaged while in pursuit of the Falcon.



> You are worse than Wesely when it comes to FTL comm scans and sensor ranges.



You are worse than Hayden Christiansen when it comes to acting.



> Already addressed.



And refuted.



> Yes, please tell me why turbolaser fire from Needa's own ship was exploding against it's hull. Unless asteroids have turbolsers now.



You'll have to post a video of this to prove it.



> Already addressed that in the TESB and recent Vader novel that there was a "hail of steady rain of asteroids impacting" all of the ships in Death Squadron pursing the Falcon in the Hoth asteroid field. Already proven that multi-megaton impacts from hundreds to thousands of asteroids impacting against the hull and shields that the gunners couldn't cover was the reason why the ships got damaged.



Trek torpedoes take out asteroids.  The ISDs were taking damage from asteroids after a few minutes.  Now how can asteroids present a threat to ISDs and torpedoes can't...



> It's too bad it's true from film evidence.



What movie are you watching, the stoner version?


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> *wall of shit text*



You've already been disproven on every single fucking argument you've brought out, multiple times.

I'm not going to waste any more time then possible with this bullshit. But fucking lol at comparing those little asteroids that they destroy in Deep Space 9 and Voyager to one's twice to three times the size of football fields hitting those Star Destroyers in thousands of them before causing any damage.

Your argument is :snorlax:


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

TWF said:


> You've already been disproven on every single fucking argument you've brought out, multiple times.



Claiming does nothing to prove.



> I'm not going to waste any more time then possible with this bullshit. But fucking lol at comparing those little asteroids that they destroy in Deep Space 9 and Voyager to one's twice to three times the size of football fields hitting those Star Destroyers in thousands of them before causing any damage.



Try one hitting an ISD and shearing off its bridge.  And a single torpedo destroying an asteriod, with a decent Trek ship able to fire off volley after volley of them.



> Your argument is :snorlax:



You do realize that's not causing anything to appear, right?

EDIT:  BTW, I think you misinterpreted me when I said the Borg demonstrated insta-assimilation in FC.  By that, I did not mean technological assimilation (though their rate of assimilating technology is impressive).  I meant biological assimilation.  You know, the whole "stick two tubes in your neck and inject nanoprobes" ability.


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

One that was heavily damaged and weakened by a Ion Cannon powered by a reactor equivalent to a Super Star Destroyer and weathering hits from them by the thousand before that happened.

The rest of your argument again is nothing but nonsensical gibberish garbage. 



rofl that's from the heavy guns right?


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 9, 2009)

We're going in circles here.  Unless either of us has new information to bring to the table it's best if the whole "asteroid-tears-off-a-bridge" argument is dropped.

And NO, that's NOT a concession.  Though you probably will say "concession accepted".

Image doesn't load.


----------



## Fang (May 9, 2009)

Rocks are harder to vaporize than metals. 100 to 300+ meter iron-nickel asteroids were instanteously vaporized in less than 1/15th a second off of freeze frames from the film. By antistarfighter battery turbolasers that were rated at minimum between 180 to 590 megatons of fire power.

The HLTs are 125 times larger than those.

Star Destroyers can take petaton levels of firepower over an half an hour and still be fine.

There is nothing remotely close to that level of firepower in Star Trek. Nothing in the high megaton range, much less gigaton to teraton levels. The difference between a Star Destroyer and a Galaxy-class warship is like comparing a human to an ant.


----------



## Ork (May 9, 2009)

Also
*Phase cannons*

 Phase cannons are 22nd century weapons, several of which first appear mounted to the _Enterprise_ in the _Star Trek: Enterprise_ episode "Silent Enemy". Phase cannons have a variable yield, with the cannons on the _Enterprise_ being rated for a maximum output of 500 gigajoules.[6] Phase cannons are generally more powerful than spatial torpedoes.[7]




I remember that quote, essentially, the Phasers From BEFORE THE FEDERATION WAS FORMED, 150 years pre-current, were capable of 500 GJ energy release, 




*Chroniton torpedoes*

 Chroniton torpedoes are a unique form of weapon employed by the Krenim. The weapons phase in and out of normal time, allowing them to pass through ordinary shields and directly damage a vessel's hull.[




*Phased plasma torpedoes*

 Phased plasma torpedoes are an advanced variation of the quantum torpedo that can phase out of normal space-time to bypass shields, then phase back in to detonate on a ship's hull, thus making shields worthless against them. 







*Multikinetic neutronic mines*

 During Season 4, Episode 1 of _Star Trek: Voyager_, Captain Janeway consults with Borg representative Seven of Nine on how to destroy . Janeway calls Seven of Nine's "multikinetic neutronic mine" a "weapon of mass destruction," following up on a statement from Tuvok that it would affect the entire solar system, destroying innocent worlds. A five-million isoton yield can disperse Borg nanoprobes across a five-light year range.


*Dreadnought*

 Dreadnought was a Cardassian self-guided missile, containing one thousand kilograms of matter, and another thousand of antimatter. Tuvok describes this as enough to destroy a small moon. Although described as a self-guided missile, in practice Dreadnought functions much like an autonomous starship. It possesses shields, phasers, a complement of quantum torpedoes, a Thoron shock emitter, a plasma wave weapon, engines capable of reaching at least Warp 9, and a sophisticated computer AI. 




*Phased polaron cannon*

 Phased polaron cannons are the primary armament of the Dominion, the main antagonist faction in the later seasons of _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_. The cannon emits a beam of polaron particles, the antimatter counterpart of the muon. When first introduced, Dominion polaron cannons easily penetrate the shielding systems of most Alpha Quadrant races' shields.


*Thalaron radiation*

 Thalaron radiation was first used in the feature film _Star Trek Nemesis_ by the villain Shinzon to assassinate the Romulan senate. Later in the movie, Shinzon attempts to kill the crew of the USS _Enterprise_-E using a ship-mounted version. Thalaron radiation, even in small amounts, petrifies living tissue almost instantly. Its properties also allow its range and area of effect to be precisely controlled, from encompassing a single room to engulfing an entire planet. Its massive destructive potential leads the Federation to consider it a biogenic weapon.


To list a FEW of the weapons and reasons why your arguments are bullshit. No weapons over megatons? Lol My ass. Shitty federation Phase cannons from before phasers were invented release 500 GJ.

Add onto these weapons, cloaking, Phase cloaking, Transporters, Adaptation, Assimilation, Time travel and you have one FUCKED star wars verse.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (May 9, 2009)

Shit just got serious


----------



## Genyosai (May 9, 2009)

Ah, one of the classic timeless battles of the internet alongside Muhammed Ali vs Bruce Lee, and Goku vs Superman.

Personally, I think there'd be heavy casualties on both sides.


----------



## Ork (May 9, 2009)

Genyosai said:


> Ah, one of the classic timeless battles of the internet alongside Muhammed Ali vs Bruce Lee, and Goku vs Superman.



It is a timeless fight indeed, Mostly because people go 'Oh lol Star Trek weapons are shit and Star wars weapons are awesone, proof is asteroid hitting ship lol' And the Star Trek fans go 'No, you're full of shit, transporters>you.'


----------



## Ork (May 9, 2009)

'One example of the advancement of the Krenim is the Temporal Weapon Ship that was commanded by Annorax. With a single shot from its temporal core, the ship could easily alter history; destroying an entire species or a single molecule.' 

I take your Death star and erase it, and your entire empire from existance.


----------



## Darklyre (May 9, 2009)

Ork said:


> Also
> *Phase cannons*
> 
> Phase cannons are 22nd century weapons, several of which first appear mounted to the _Enterprise_ in the _Star Trek: Enterprise_ episode "Silent Enemy". Phase cannons have a variable yield, with the cannons on the _Enterprise_ being rated for a maximum output of 500 gigajoules.[6] Phase cannons are generally more powerful than spatial torpedoes.[7]
> ...



You, uh, realize that gigajoules are MUCH, MUCH smaller than megatons, right? We're talking multiple orders of magnitude smaller, here. 500 GJ is only equal to 0.000119503 MT.

If other Trek weapons are anywhere in that same ballpark of figures, they wouldn't be enough to dent the hull, much less blow something up.

Also, that Borg nanoprobe mine was RETARDED. At a five LY range (2.5 LY radius, I'm assuming) 99.99% of those probes would fly into empty space for eternity. The ones that DO manage to hit a planet would burn up in atmosphere.


----------



## Genyosai (May 9, 2009)

Now if it was 500 _Gigatons_ that would be frightening.


----------



## Endless Mike (May 10, 2009)

Empire has far greater numbers, industrial capacity, strategic mobility, and firepower than any ST faction. Why this has gone on for 8 pages is a mystery to me.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 10, 2009)

This guy solos. Not because he's particularly strong or hax but because he's hot.


----------



## Ork (May 10, 2009)

Darklyre said:


> You, uh, realize that gigajoules are MUCH, MUCH smaller than megatons, right? We're talking multiple orders of magnitude smaller, here. 500 GJ is only equal to 0.000119503 MT.
> 
> If other Trek weapons are anywhere in that same ballpark of figures, they wouldn't be enough to dent the hull, much less blow something up.
> 
> Also, that Borg nanoprobe mine was RETARDED. At a five LY range (2.5 LY radius, I'm assuming) 99.99% of those probes would fly into empty space for eternity. The ones that DO manage to hit a planet would burn up in atmosphere.



I see you used the conversion calculator, I'm perfectly aware of how much energy a gigajoule is. I was putting the archaic weapon up there as a reference, also, Phase cannons were used to annihilate asteroids in the show, hence putting them up in comparison agaisnt Star wars weapons. I doubt the calcs produced are even remotely accurate.

And as has been said, Quantum Torps realease Gigatons, and frankly if a star fighter travelling at what is under 50m/s can crash into the bridge of a star destroyer and annihilate it, those phasers would be able to do exactly the same thing with ease.
Star destroyers fold like paper as soon as  you pierce their shields.

@Endless mike, you're absolutely correct, note that its the entire universe, not one faction, vs the GE.

The GE is enganged in a conflict with multiple galaxies, multiple time planes, and every single race and all their special weapons in those galaxies. I don't see them winning. No way, no how.


----------



## Darklyre (May 10, 2009)

Ork said:


> I see you used the conversion calculator, I'm perfectly aware of how much energy a gigajoule is. I was putting the archaic weapon up there as a reference, also, Phase cannons were used to annihilate asteroids in the show, hence putting them up in comparison agaisnt Star wars weapons. I doubt the calcs produced are even remotely accurate.



Those calcs could be off by a factor of a hundred and they'd STILL outmatch Trek.


----------



## EvilMoogle (May 10, 2009)

The real concern here is the speed difference.  Even if we assume the combat power is roughly the same between the two universes Star Trek universe has a huge logistical problem.

The travel speed is so slow that they can't get troops where they need to to mount an effective offense.  Essentially it will feel like fighting a war on 7-8 fronts.

Essentially it's the campaign battle equivalent of a speed-blitz.


----------



## Genyosai (May 10, 2009)

> Essentially it's the campaign battle equivalent of a speed-blitz.



And when that happens, it's always badasssss.


----------



## enzymeii (May 10, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> The real concern here is the speed difference.  Even if we assume the combat power is roughly the same between the two universes Star Trek universe has a huge logistical problem.
> 
> The travel speed is so slow that they can't get troops where they need to to mount an effective offense.  Essentially it will feel like fighting a war on 7-8 fronts.
> 
> Essentially it's the campaign battle equivalent of a speed-blitz.



Borg Transwarp conduits could make up the difference, since this is the entire ST galaxy vs SW galaxy.


----------



## EvilMoogle (May 10, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Borg Transwarp conduits could make up the difference, since this is the entire ST galaxy vs SW galaxy.



If things last long enough for them to get setup and configured (which apparently takes quite some time) this would let the ST universe launch an offense.

Still wouldn't help them deal with hit-and-run skirmish type fights on the defense though.  And they'd be big targets to take out quickly.


----------



## Fang (May 10, 2009)

Transwarp makes no fucking difference. It's like the Federation itself, they have no way of dealing with a civilization that is hundreds of millions times faster when it comes to communications technology. They could bypass every gay little counter measure the Federation or any other civilization has in Star Trek.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (May 10, 2009)

Zaru said:
			
		

> Zaru
> This message has been deleted by Zaru. Reason: Whenever I feel down in life, I will just look at the people arguing in this thread and feel better


Quoted for truth.

TWF, chill out. The speed difference is all that's needed in this debate. The freagin' IoM gets taken out via speedblitz, I doubt the Feddies can keep up.


----------



## Ork (May 10, 2009)

EvilMoogle said:


> The real concern here is the speed difference.  Even if we assume the combat power is roughly the same between the two universes Star Trek universe has a huge logistical problem.
> 
> The travel speed is so slow that they can't get troops where they need to to mount an effective offense.  Essentially it will feel like fighting a war on 7-8 fronts.
> 
> Essentially it's the campaign battle equivalent of a speed-blitz.



Travel speed is a non issue.
*Cytherian*

 "The Cytherians were an advanced race who lived near the center of the galaxy. They were explorers and made contact with various other races. It should be noted that their manner of initiating first contact was atypical; they brought other races to them rather than traveling the galaxy in search of intelligent life.
 In 2367, the USS Enterprise-D encountered an alien probe while attempting to repair the Argus Array. The probe interfaced with Lieutenant Barclay, and gave him the advanced knowledge needed to bring the Enterprise to the Cytherians, the presumed makers of the device. After the Enterprise had arrived at the Cytherians' homeworld, Lieutenant Barclay was returned to normal. (TNG: "The Nth Degree")
 The Cytherian was played by Kay E. Kuter."


Cytherians can simply give knowledge of superspeed travel to the Trek races.




ICONIAN


"

The Iconians were also mentioned in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Benjamin Sisko and company assisted Jem'Hadar soldiers in destroying a second gateway. This episode marked the first appearance of the Vorta, Weyoun.
 The idea of the Iconians bears a resemblance to that of The Ancients of the fictional Stargate universe. Both races used gateways for instantaneous interstellar travel. Both are described as ancient, advanced, mythological cultures having vast empires."






also, while we're on the subject, the Voth also had Transwarp capabilties, and they did not need a long time to create a conduit, though neither do the borg.


VOTH




"Some starships in the Voth fleet were massive and extremely powerful in comparison with Starfleet vessels – the Voth were able to beam the USS _Voyager_ into a chamber inside their vessel which could clearly house many more starships. This transport was accomplished despite _Voyager_'s shields being raised. The Voth were also able to take command of the ship's computer, shut the majority of systems down, and take primary power offline. The dampening field used to create this effect managed to render tricorders, communicators, and phasers useless."





There are so many races with so many powerful abilities in Star trek...
Voyager was several hundred metres long, if their cargo bay was able to fit several voyegers, and they were able to just... transport the entire ship, shields and all, then take all its power, ships like that would make mincemeat of anything the Star wars verse has. Also, Voth ships are capable of Phase cloaking, they can cloak, sothey're not only invisible, but out of sync with the real universe, so as to be able to pass through matter etc, thats the kind of advantage that wins wars right there.


Combine VOth Phase cloaking with Chroniton torps that can totally ignore shields, and Phased Polaron Beams that can ignore shields as well, along with borg adaptation to firepower, and you have godships.

I totally fail to understand why the people arguing for the Star Wars verse can't grasp that the federation are the LITTLE GUYS IN THE BIG POND. Its all well and good saying 'OH GE HAS MORE FIREPOWER' Sure, so do 90 percent of the other races in Star trek, How the Federation survived two hundred years is a mystery to me. I'm Studiously ignoring the dozens of omipotents that appear int he series as per THread starters conditions too.
Hell, the goddamn BORG arent even CLOSE to the most technologically advanced race in ST.


Edit; Found a Pic of the Inside of the Voth ship that.. Shipnapped Voyager.



Voyager is 344 metres long. As you can see, its absolutely miniscule in there, that thing is clearly Death Star Scale, However unlike the Death star, It can Transport A starship into itself and shut it down, despite shields etc. The Technology involved is absolutely staggering.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (May 10, 2009)

That's Death Star scale easily. Also, Death Star has tractor beams, as well as just about every heavy warship. It can replicate the end result of what the Voth did, just takes a longer time.

And to all those races mentioned, you need to realize they're still weaker than the Empire. Even all of them combined couldn't defeat the Empire. Only the super-duper races with some magic power could do it.


----------



## Ork (May 10, 2009)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> That's Death Star scale easily. Also, Death Star has tractor beams, as well as just about every heavy warship. It can replicate the end result of what the Voth did, just takes a longer time.
> 
> And to all those races mentioned, you need to realize they're still weaker than the Empire. Even all of them combined couldn't defeat the Empire. Only the super-duper races with some magic power could do it.




Tractor beams are not Matter transportation, to put it this way, voyager was dematerialised, turned into essentially computer data, and moved a massive distance, and rematerialised in captivity, while it had its shields up. No Star Wars Tech is comparable to that.

At least post an informed opinion, and not a 'lol Im right ur wrong'.


----------



## enzymeii (May 10, 2009)

Yeah, the Voth could just beam GE ships into their transporter buffer and then erase the data.  That's pretty haxxed out.


----------



## Fang (May 10, 2009)

Yeah it's not like ECM and jamming don't matter at all.


----------



## Darklyre (May 10, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Yeah, the Voth could just beam GE ships into their transporter buffer and then erase the data.  That's pretty haxxed out.



The hilarious part is that Trek never does anything with their hax abilities. They have countless ways of haxing their opponents to death and CIS prevents each and every one.

They could transport enemies into space by overriding safety protocols. They could transport self-detonating bombs into enemy ships. They could transport antimatter into the enemy's bridge. The Borg could take over entire systems at a time with targeted nanoprobe bombardment. The Dominion had the ability to incapacitate almost every single one of their enemies from the inside. The Remans could've won by simply transporting their Thalaron radiation weapons onto the target and triggering it that way instead of shooting it from their ship.

It's not tech that holds Trek back. It's the absolute lack of intelligence.


----------



## enzymeii (May 10, 2009)

Darklyre said:


> The hilarious part is that Trek never does anything with their hax abilities. They have countless ways of haxing their opponents to death and CIS prevents each and every one.
> 
> They could transport enemies into space by overriding safety protocols. They could transport self-detonating bombs into enemy ships. They could transport antimatter into the enemy's bridge. The Borg could take over entire systems at a time with targeted nanoprobe bombardment. The Dominion had the ability to incapacitate almost every single one of their enemies from the inside. The Remans could've won by simply transporting their Thalaron radiation weapons onto the target and triggering it that way instead of shooting it from their ship.
> 
> It's not tech that holds Trek back. It's the absolute lack of intelligence.



It's not a lack of intelligence (/imposed CIS) for the most part (often it is, though), it's that other ST races have means to defend against transporter haxxing.  Since everybody has transporters, everybody should have the know-how to defend themselves against transporters and other just hax.  

The real mystery is that, since transporters can convert anything into a state of pure energy for purposes of movement, that they don't simply switch off the containment beam and then beam a few rocks onto an enemy planet, thus destroying it (e=mc2).


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (May 11, 2009)

Ork said:


> Tractor beams are not Matter transportation, to put it this way, voyager was dematerialised, turned into essentially computer data, and moved a massive distance, and rematerialised in captivity, while it had its shields up. No Star Wars Tech is comparable to that.
> 
> At least post an informed opinion, and not a 'lol Im right ur wrong'.



I don't think I ever said anything along the lines of "lol i'm right ur wrong." And if you read my post more carefully, I said they can replicate the end result. Enemy ship being completely caught and help completely helpless. As for the other races beating the Empire bit? The Empire spans a whole galaxy with millions of planets with quadrillions in the population. Even the most unsuccessful recruiting drive on, say, Coruscant, should result in millions of people enlisting. A galaxy-wide recruiting drive and they could have trillions in their army. Combine this with their industrial capabilities of being able to produce millions of ISDs and quadrillions of droids, they should have little to no problem overwhelming any race in Star Trek.





I just realized something with enzymeii's post. If we take away Trektardism, they might be able to have unlimited energy if they can hook up their transporters into their power generation. E=mc2 indeed. Imagine Trek-folks sitting in an asteroid field and just converting all of the asteroids into massive amounts of energy, which they then dump into their phaser banks? In all honesty, the Voth at least could do it easily. Imagine them filling that entire compartment with asteroids, then going into battle converting all of it into energy for their version of phaser banks? Say a low density 1km^3 asteroid with a mass of about 2,500,000,000,000kgs. They'd be able to put 2.25^29J into their weapons. That's a single order of magnitude under the Death Star. The Voth would indeed be a serious threat if they have that capability. I don't think they could put all that energy into shields, however. Their entire ship would probably explode due to all the energy build-up. They need to get rid of the excess energy, and the only way to do that efficiently is by shooting it at the enemy.


----------



## madcow3005 (May 11, 2009)

So basically we've narrowed it down to this:

Star Trek has Star Wars beaten in the weapons department due to various hax technologies that ignore shielding, or petrify you, or other weird effects.

Star Wars has Star Trek beat in speed until one of the Borg are able to assimilate a star fighter or civilian transport of some sort. Then, their speeds are equal. Same with communication speed.

ST has SW beaten in terms of defense if we include intangibility as a viable form of defense. In raw shield strength, SW wins, but again, ST ships can completely bypass shields.

SW has the numerical advantage so far, since all of the SWverse mentioned outnumbers all of the STverse mentioned.

So, basically SW must blitzkrieg ST very fast, and annihilate the entire galaxy's worth of inhabitants, or else ST starts stealing tech and using their multitude of technological advantages to overcome the numerical and speed advantage SW possesses.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (May 11, 2009)

Darth Ruin said:


> THERE ARE NO FORCE USERS INVOLVED IN THIS FIGHT.
> 
> It's purely technological. Any godlike/physic/immortal beings in star Trek are also banned. There are no Sith, Jedi, or force users involved in this fight. EU material is NOT included.
> 
> ...



I have a pretty fair grasp of Star Trek in general, though my knowledge of Star wars is limited to vague meomeries of two of the movies and some Clone War Cartoons. Anyway, I saw the new Star Trek Movie last night. So assuming that alternative timeline is  included, which would be awesome, they could use Redmatter bombarding.  Specifically, that slingarray tech/species from Voyager could bombard redmatter from lightyears away. Alternatively, the new movie showed tech that lets them beam on to ships during warp. I think Spark said they were at warp. So, with prep, they could probably beam redmatter or people with bombs into ships to kill the crew. if they can't do that, they could probaby opt for mutual destruction by just setting off redmatter all over in whatever sector. 

As to the last question of technology, I dunno. The best tech of Star Trek has, in my opinion, isn't crap that destroys alot or goes real fast. I am fair more impressed with shit like replicators and holograms like the Doctor. No idea what Star Wars has in comparision.


----------



## enzymeii (May 11, 2009)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> I have a pretty fair grasp of Star Trek in general, though my knowledge of Star wars is limited to vague meomeries of two of the movies and some Clone War Cartoons. Anyway, I saw the new Star Trek Movie last night. So assuming that alternative timeline is  included, which would be awesome, they could use Redmatter bombarding.  Specifically, that slingarray tech/species from Voyager could bombard redmatter from lightyears away. Alternatively, the new movie showed tech that lets them beam on to ships during warp. I think Spark said they were at warp. So, with prep, they could probably beam redmatter or people with bombs into ships to kill the crew. if they can't do that, they could probaby opt for mutual destruction by just setting off redmatter all over in whatever sector.
> 
> As to the last question of technology, I dunno. The best tech of Star Trek has, in my opinion, isn't crap that destroys alot or goes real fast. I am fair more impressed with shit like replicators and holograms like the Doctor. No idea what Star Wars has in comparision.




*Spoiler*: __ 



Red matter comes from the main ST timeline, so it can be used.  Same with the Romulans' ability to create an artificial singularity in a planet's core.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

Darklyre said:


> They could transport self-detonating bombs into enemy ships.



Voyager did do that to the Borg once. I can't remember if their shields were down or Voyager was inside the shield dome but I'm certain shields normally block it.


----------



## Muk (May 11, 2009)

Didn't ST also have the Genesis? Didn't it like destroy a planet after a few years or something?

And in one of those movies where Kirk and Picard met, didn't they have a rocket that could nuke a sun?

I don't see how ST doesn't have the fire power to blow up SW ships.

And in "First contact" didn't picard turn off the safety of the hologram system and shot with the tompson?

Couldn't they just make a hologram of the death start turn off the safety system and shoot back at SW star destroyers and own them?


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> So basically we've narrowed it down to this:
> 
> Star Trek has Star Wars beaten in the weapons department due to various hax technologies that ignore shielding, or petrify you, or other weird effects.



Not really.



> Star Wars has Star Trek beat in speed until one of the Borg are able to assimilate a star fighter or civilian transport of some sort. Then, their speeds are equal. Same with communication speed.



Because in a bloodlusted fight the Borg would obviously help the Federation or others? No.



> ST has SW beaten in terms of defense if we include intangibility as a viable form of defense. In raw shield strength, SW wins, but again, ST ships can completely bypass shields.



10+ light-minute ranges, solar system range bombing, high teraton to petaton level firepower and shields, ECM and jamming, ect...



> So, basically SW must blitzkrieg ST very fast, and annihilate the entire galaxy's worth of inhabitants, or else ST starts stealing tech and using their multitude of technological advantages to overcome the numerical and speed advantage SW possesses.



Considering most of the Federation's defense and communications technologies aren't FTL, a hyperdrive equipped ship could bypass all of them to BDZ Earth.


----------



## enzymeii (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:
			
		

> Considering most of the Federation's defense and communications technologies aren't FTL, a hyperdrive equipped ship could bypass all of them to BDZ Earth.



Are you on crack?  How do you think the anyone in the Federation communicates if their communications and defenses aren't ftl?  They use subspace to transmit messages derp.


----------



## Muk (May 11, 2009)

So everyone is ignoring my post 

does it not work? with the hologram? or what? 

or what's with the sun busting rocket that was fired in one of those movies?

Or genesis rocket/bomb should that be on the same scale as what a death star is capable of?

blowing a planet into bits and pieces?


----------



## enzymeii (May 11, 2009)

Muk said:


> So everyone is ignoring my post
> 
> does it not work? with the hologram? or what?



Nothing like that's ever been shown, so I don't think it'd work.  You'd still have to generate enough raw power to fire the DS's beam, which is the problem for any weapon that's not the size of a moon.

edit: iirc, Voyager was able to project holographic ships in one episode, but they were only unsolid illusions.



> or what's with the sun busting rocket that was fired in one of those movies?



From Generations?  Yeah, that might work, but Dr. Sauron's dead now.


> Or genesis rocket/bomb should that be on the same scale as what a death star is capable of?



The Genesis bomb can destroy all life on a planet, and the Federation should have access to it, so I'd say that's in play.


----------



## Muk (May 11, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Nothing like that's ever been shown, so I don't think it'd work.  You'd still have to generate enough raw power to fire the DS's beam, which is the problem for any weapon that's not the size of a moon.
> 
> edit: iirc, Voyager was able to project holographic ships in one episode, but they were only unsolid illusions.
> 
> ...




Ahh but in the "First Contact, picard made the tompson real enough to kill borgs"

Didn't the Genesis bomb also destroy the entire planet? I remember seeing it in "Search for Spok" or Spark or whatever that vulcan's name is


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Are you on crack?  How do you think the anyone in the Federation communicates if their communications and defenses aren't ftl?  They use subspace to transmit messages derp.



Wrong. They have 22 light year radius detection technology for subspace and sublight speeds.

Not going to work very well when a Star Destroyer is faster than a personal cruise ship that can go to the ass end of the galaxy to the core in a half a day or so in hyperspace.

It won't help if your sending a message for assistance and the enemy is already hundreds of light years away by the time you can mobilize support.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

Muk said:


> Ahh but in the "First Contact, picard made the tompson real enough to kill borgs"


That was on a much smaller scale. To do that with fleets you'd need properly placed emitters and enough power to maintain the force fields that make them solid. Most races can't do that.



> Didn't the Genesis bomb also destroy the entire planet? I remember seeing it in "Search for Spok" or Spark or whatever that vulcan's name is



It cause rapid aging. What it does is reformats the planet, erasing everything on it and reseeding it with the preprogramed matter which it then ages to maturity very, very rapidly.


----------



## Muk (May 11, 2009)

ahh pity actually with the hologram thing, though since SW has the output power, if the blogs get their hands on a generator and on the hologram technology

they could whipe SW from the field with multiple death star holograms, yes?


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

That could go either way really. If the Empire discovered it and salvaged a working system from a destroyed ship... I see a fleet of cloaked ships with holographic emitters wreaking havoc.


----------



## Muk (May 11, 2009)

so hologram as long as they got enough power are just too damn hax


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

Empire already has technology to deal with cloaked ships and the such.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

I meant the Empire would use the cloaked fleet.




Muk said:


> so hologram as long as they got enough power are just too damn hax



Yes they are. After the EMH I've wondered why they didn't make a watered down security version.


----------



## enzymeii (May 11, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Yes they are. After the EMH I've wondered why they didn't make a watered down security version.



Because the holodeck never malfunctions


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

Didn't stop them from making the EMH now did it?


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 11, 2009)

Well, the EMH was only supposed to operate in a sickbay outfitted with holoemitters, before he got his portable holoemitter from the future.  Outfitting a whole ship with those would be much more expensive.



> Considering most of the Federation's defense and communications technologies aren't FTL, a hyperdrive equipped ship could bypass all of them to BDZ Earth.



Subspace communications are most certainly FTL, or else ships lightyears apart wouldn't be able to communicate instantaneously.  As for the whole "22 lightyear detection radius", you'll need to provide proof.  And, if it is true, it actually boosts Trek sensors.  They can detect things instantly within 22 lightyears.  I'd like to see SW do that.

Still, if Trek communications are FTL, they still have limited range- Voyager was unable to communicate with the Alpha Quadrant until they had a special system put up.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Well, the EMH was only supposed to operate in a sickbay outfitted with holoemitters, before he got his portable holoemitter from the future.  Outfitting a whole ship with those would be much more expensive.



They did it with the Prometheus. It's PIS that they can't see the insane tactical uses holograms can have.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Subspace communications are most certainly FTL, or else ships lightyears apart wouldn't be able to communicate instantaneously.  As for the whole "22 lightyear detection radius", you'll need to provide proof.  And, if it is true, it actually boosts Trek sensors.  They can detect things instantly within 22 lightyears.  I'd like to see SW do that.



They did at the start of TESB.

The communication range of a Federation ship is 22 light years, an Imperial ship is over 1000 light years. The TESB incident shows Imperial ships capable of scanning over light-hours from the edge of a solar system in Hoth. 

The primary subspace sensors the Federation has is 25,000 year old tech in Star Wars aka ancient and fucking outdated. 



> Still, if Trek communications are FTL, they still have limited range- Voyager was unable to communicate with the Alpha Quadrant until they had a special system put up.



And that's ignorning jamming and ECM not too mention Imperial ships each have hyperwave recievers. The holonet provides real-time communication across an entire galaxy. The Federation is again limited to that 22 lightyear radius compared to the Empire's 1000 light year radius.

Ignorning as well that Imperial jamming can be powerful enough to reduce a starship's manuverability as Dondonna pointed out in the ANH novel.

They can literally outrace a distress signal to Earth from Beta Quadrant while in hyperspace.


----------



## madcow3005 (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ST has more hax weapons than SW, unless you can point out weapons that completely bypass shielding.

This is ST UNIVERSE vs. SW UNIVERSE.

Not "ST free-for-all vs. SW universe."

Hence, all races in each universe work together towards the defeat of a common enemy.

And I love how you respond to my quote about DEFENSIVE measures with light-minute weapon ranges, and weapons yield, which are clearly OFFENSIVE measures. Derp.

You gonna light-minute bombard a ship that can phase through your turbolaser bolts?

Also, even with massive speed advantage at the beginning of the fight, SW still cannot destroy an entire galaxy's worth of inhabitants. The rebels were able to hide from the Empire a great deal of time, and I don't see why small pockets of ST races can't do the same.

Small pocket of Borg hide on Endor, until finally a probe droid spots them. If they also spot the probe droid and manage to capture it, they gain access to hyperdrives. Then, using their rapid-cloning technology that their nanoprobes have in conjunction with replicators, they can send out waves of drones in hyper-drive equipped ships to infect other civilian planets in the SW galaxy.

Not to mention, you still haven't given a solution to how you fight an intangible ship. My guess is you'll just ignore this point, and reply with a message consisting of a number of "derps", some "snorlax", and a few "RAWR MEGATON PETATON TERATON LIGHTMINUTE RAWR!"


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> ST has more hax weapons than SW, unless you can point out weapons that completely bypass shielding.





> This is ST UNIVERSE vs. SW UNIVERSE.
> 
> Not "ST free-for-all vs. SW universe."



With CIS assumed on. Which is why the Voth never helped the Federation and others during the battle of Wolf blah blah blah.



> Hence, all races in each universe work together towards the defeat of a common enemy.



It's too bad these civilizations are badly outclassed in firepower, communications and shielding technology as well industry.



> And I love how you respond to my quote about DEFENSIVE measures with light-minute weapon ranges, and weapons yield, which are clearly OFFENSIVE measures. Derp.



Star Wars ships have naval engagements over ranges of thousands of kilometers.

Star Trek ones engage in under a dozen kilometerse. It's not going to help when their manuverability is reduced by heavy ECM and jamming, and getting hundreds of ships wiped out near instanteously while they try get close enough to ineffectually attack a Star Destroyer.



> You gonna light-minute bombard a ship that can phase through your turbolaser bolts?



Amusing wank.



> Also, even with massive speed advantage at the beginning of the fight, SW still cannot destroy an entire galaxy's worth of inhabitants. The rebels were able to hit from the Empire a great deal of time, and I don't see why small pockets of ST races can't do the same.



Slipery slope fallacy. 



> Small pocket of Borg hide on Endor, until finally a probe droid spots them. If they also spot the probe droid and manage to capture it, they gain access to hyperdrives. Then, using their rapid-cloning technology that their nanoprobes have in conjunction with replicators, they can send out waves of drones in hyper-drive equipped ships to infect other civilian planets in the SW galaxy.
> 
> Not to mention, you still haven't given a solution to how you fight an intangible ship. My guess is you'll just ignore this point, and reply with a message consisting of a number of "derps", some "snorlax", and a few "RAWR MEGATON PETATON TERATON LIGHTMINUTE RAWR!"



Cute fanfiction. Also lol at the Borg using replicators and nanotechnology when they couldn't even properly assimilate a ship enough despite it being the same Federation technology they always take and not instantly over-riding the rest of it's systems. So again fucking lol at them doing so to a completely xeno technology that works nothing like they're own being assimilated like some random ass probe droid that wouldn't just self-destruct.


----------



## madcow3005 (May 11, 2009)

You still haven't responded with how SW deals with phasing or weapons that bypass shielding, just like I predicted you would.

Keep trolling and ignoring points that you don't have an argument for.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> You still haven't responded with how SW deals with phasing or weapons that bypass shielding, just like I predicted you would.



And you keep on insisting with a no limits fallacy because ST shields don't work like SW ones.

Good to know.



> Keep trolling and ignoring points that you don't have an argument for.



Obviously I am trolling when your the one making fanfictions about the Borg randomely lurking in Endor doing completely out of character actions and tactics.


----------



## madcow3005 (May 11, 2009)

Equivalency rule. SW shields block stuff. ST shields block stuff.

Difference is, SW shields have a higher power rating by multiple factors.

However, just because your armor is thicker doesn't mean an attack that completely bypasses armor will somehow fail against you.

Otherwise, we better start stating that Ki isn't equal to reiatsu, and Chakra is different from those previous 2. Meaning Bleach characters are completely intangible to all attacks from different verses.

Shall we start doing that TWF? Or are you gonna stop trolling and acknowledge the equivalency rule?

Heck, if you don't wanna acknowledge that SW shields are equivlalent to ST shields, then lemme pose this argument:

Prove Photon Torpedoes will be stopped by SW shields. Yes, ST shields stop them, but apparently you think they work in completely different ways, so prove that weaponry from ST can be stopped by SW shields. 

If shielding tech is different, then weapon tech can be as well. Maybe both verses completely bypass each other's shielding technology, in which case a mega-ton yield phaser wrecks an ISD just like a teraton turbolaser barrage wreaks ST ships.

You wanna keep arguing that shielding tech isn't equivalent in both verses?


----------



## Darklyre (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> Equivalency rule. SW shields block stuff. ST shields block stuff.
> 
> Difference is, SW shields have a higher power rating by multiple factors.
> 
> ...



The difference is that a megaton-level weapon would barely be enough to dent a SW ship's hull, if all you're comparing is yield. While SW ships don't have 40K levels of armor, they have significantly thicker armor than any Trek ships I can think of. Remember, ISDs are capable of surviving their own ramming actions.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> Equivalency rule. SW shields block stuff. ST shields block stuff.



Except that Star War shields have two types, particle and ray, former blocks physical matter, the latter stops radiation, intangible energies, energy weapons, ect...



> Difference is, SW shields have a higher power rating by multiple factors.



Okay.



> However, just because your armor is thicker doesn't mean an attack that completely bypasses armor will somehow fail against you.



Please show me *standard Federation weapons technology* that isn't one-shot plot device of a random episode in either Voyager, The Next Generation, TOS or Deep Space Nine.



> Otherwise, we better start stating that Ki isn't equal to reiatsu, and Chakra is different from those previous 2. Meaning Bleach characters are completely intangible to all attacks from different verses.



Shitty analogy and example. GE shields do the same thing as IoM shields, but both function and work in completely different ways. One has Void shields that regenerate and work in layers, the other has particle and ray shielding designed for different purposes that overlap each other.



> Shall we start doing that TWF? Or are you gonna stop trolling and acknowledge the equivalency rule?



Nothing I have said is in violation of the equivalency rule, and stop with the terrible ad homiem attacks.



> Heck, if you don't wanna acknowledge that SW shields are equivlalent to ST shields, then lemme pose this argument



Okay.



> Prove Photon Torpedoes will be stopped by SW shields. Yes, ST shields stop them, but apparently you think they work in completely different ways, so prove that weaponry from ST can be stopped by SW shields.



Let's see, Federation and ST shields work on frequencies, Star Wars works on brute force for the main shielding. This is still a property observed in Star Trek.

So far you have nothing.



> If shielding tech is different, then weapon tech can be as well. Maybe both verses completely bypass each other's shielding technology, in which case a mega-ton yield phaser wrecks an ISD just like a teraton turbolaser barrage wreaks ST ships.



I'll let you stew on why this quote of your's makes absolutely no sense.



> You wanna keep arguing that shielding tech isn't equivalent in both verses?



You wanna make an argument not involving a technological device that isn't only available for the sake of a singular episode?

Or are the Q gonna save Star Trek now from the those big bad Imperials?


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

Tell me, how many cronoton torpedos did it take to destroy Voyager? Do you think an ISD, let alone a SSD, is gonna go down in a single shot? How many photon torpedos did the Scimitar land on the Enterprise E while her shields were down? Those weapons wont win it. The time weapon could, but the time it would take to get the nessicary clacs to avoid mass collateral damage would make it practically useless.


----------



## EvilMoogle (May 11, 2009)

The problem with comparing the energy yeilds of Star Wars and Star Trek is it's made up numbers, there's no science or plot behind it other than what they pick out of a hat.

Comparing how they work and what they do is much smarter.  In that respect they're much closer (and by extension shields are much closer as well).

But if that's not a good enough argument for you consider this:

Three D-Cell batteries put into a traditional incandescent flashlight produces a light of about 82 lumens.  Put the same batteries into a LED flashlight and you can get a light that is 1050 lumens.

Phasers work differently than turbolasers, at a very basic level.  Simply playing numbers games doesn't work.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

The biggest display of power phasers have that I can recall is on the first Borg Cube the Enterprise D encountered and it is still leagues below what turbo lasers would do.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

Saxton and Wong are physicists, especially the former whose specality is Astrophysics. And they used a shitload of quantification, for their calculation so they aren't random ass numbers pulled out of a "hat".


----------



## madcow3005 (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> Except that Star War shields have two types, particle and ray, former blocks physical matter, the latter stops radiation, intangible energies, energy weapons, ect...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ST shields block both matter and energy except when regarding certain weapons which are specifically designed to penetrate shields.

In essence, they function exactly the same as a combined SW ray+particle shield, with the key difference being that a SW ship with particle and ray shields up are several thousand times stronger. 

ST shields have been brought down by brute force firepower before, proving that they do have much in common with SW shields, with minor differences.

So why would the equivalency rule not come into play? Both universes utilize shielding that acts in the exact same manner: they block things. 

You might as well argue that a Proton Torpedo, which makes things go boom, is fundamentally different from a Photon Torpedo, which makes things go boom, except the Proton Torpedo makes a much bigger boom.

Like I said, if you think shielding technology in SW is fundamentally different from shields in ST, so much so that weaponry which works on one shield wouldn't work on the other, then why stop at just shield tech? Weapons tech, transporter tech, engine tech, everything could be argued to work differently.

Also, if you want to claim everything shown so far is PnJ, then here's one thing that isn't: Borg nanoprobes have been shown to be able to adapt to a wide variety of technology, with one of the exceptions being 8274. Nanoprobes have been shown to be able to adapt and assimilate technology that was 2 centuries ahead of the current timeline.

Logically, with their shown feats, they should be able to assimilate hyperdrive and shielding tech from any civilian ship they manage to capture, and weapons tech from any starfighter they overwhelm with numbers.

How does SW deal with guerilla Borg? And before you state that CiS is on, therefor the Borg wouldn't engage in guerilla warfare, the Borg have also never been faced with a galaxy-spanning foe who had them on the edge of extinction before either. Can you predict what their behavior would be like if they were being systematically eradicated? Why WOULDN"T the Borg adapt to an overwhelmingly powerful foe, when they've shown the ability to adapt to strategy and technology and tactics before?

And lastly, you still haven't shown how SW deals phasing.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

madcow3005 said:


> ST shields block both matter and energy except when regarding certain weapons which are specifically designed to penetrate shields.



Teleporters are routinely stopped by jamming, dense matter, electromagnetism, ect...



> In essence, they function exactly the same as a combined SW ray+particle shield, with the key difference being that a SW ship with particle and ray shields up are several thousand times stronger.



Okay.



> ST shields have been brought down by brute force firepower before, proving that they do have much in common with SW shields, with minor differences.



I already stated this myself.



> So why would the equivalency rule not come into play? Both universes utilize shielding that acts in the exact same manner: they block things.



Because weapons technology is radically different. Phasers do megaton level damage but can be adapted to by the Borg for example to nullify their power by using frequencies found in their shielding and weapons technology, Star Wars don't use *frequencies* in turbolasers, blasters, superlasers or shields (either ray or particle). And for that matter the main focus is brute force and power.



> You might as well argue that a Proton Torpedo, which makes things go boom, is fundamentally different from a Photon Torpedo, which makes things go boom, except the Proton Torpedo makes a much bigger boom.



That wasn't the point of my argument.



> Like I said, if you think shielding technology in SW is fundamentally different from shields in ST, so much so that weaponry which works on one shield wouldn't work on the other, then why stop at just shield tech? Weapons tech, transporter tech, engine tech, everything could be argued to work differently.



ST have frequencies in weapon and shield technology that if adapted to or nullified, are worthless despite their power. SW doesn't have this disadvantage. Engine technology is no real difference, just energy output. Star Destroyers produce more than medium size stars, the Enterprise-D produces the same as a miniature star.



> Also, if you want to claim everything shown so far is PnJ, then here's one thing that isn't: Borg nanoprobes have been shown to be able to adapt to a wide variety of technology, with one of the exceptions being 8274. Nanoprobes have been shown to be able to adapt and assimilate technology that was 2 centuries ahead of the current timeline.



Your ignorning the Voth coexisting near the Borg Collective for over a thousand years because they're technology was so radically different than the rest of the galaxy's. The Borg have nog fundamentally changed in over 20,000 years while humans from Coruscant continually increased their own since the predating of the Old Republic.



> Logically, with their shown feats, they should be able to assimilate hyperdrive and shielding tech from any civilian ship they manage to capture, and weapons tech from any starfighter they overwhelm with numbers.



Maximum propulsion of Warp is 200,000C, Hyperdrive is millions of times faster. The Borg are absolutely incapable of traversing a multi-spanning extragalactic war with Star Wars, especially since the Empire will not be sending civilian ships against them.



> How does SW deal with guerilla Borg? And before you state that CiS is on, therefor the Borg wouldn't engage in guerilla warfare, the Borg have also never been faced with a galaxy-spanning foe who had them on the edge of extinction before either. Can you predict what their behavior would be like if they were being systematically eradicated? Why WOULDN"T the Borg adapt to an overwhelmingly powerful foe, when they've shown the ability to adapt to strategy and technology and tactics before?



That doesn't change the fact you can not alter the tactics or intelligence or CIS of the Borg. They never could deal with the Voth or Species 8472. They *always* approach the Federation, Romulans, Klingons, ect...without shields, in a linear fashion with no sense of any tactics whatsoever to attempt to adapt after suffering losses to adapt to their phasers.

It doesn't help when the Borg have the tactical sense worse than a druken monkey and ships that can outright destroy entire fleet of Cubes and Spheres in singular volleys over a distance of thousands of kilometers. And considering the Borg have never changed their behavior, again your point is absolutely moot.



> And lastly, you still haven't shown how SW deals phasing.



Show me this "phasing technology" that isn't a one time plot device that is a constant in Star Trek for the Federation or others. You haven't shown me how Star Trek deals with a civilization that has communications and travel speeds millions of times faster than their own.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> Show me this "phasing technology" that isn't a one time plot device that is a constant in Star Trek for the Federation or others.



Dominion phased poloron beams. They needed to steal a crashed Jem Hadar ship to develope a counter. Breen also had a nasty energy dampening weapon that rendered the combined Federation and Romulan fleet useless until they could figure out how to adapt that silly Klingon trick to their systems.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

And this was during the Dominon Wars correct? After this device was shown and countered, did they ever use it again? Was it a mainstay in the fleets of those regional powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants?

What is it's range? Total power? Is it more impressive than the fleet disabling Ion Cannon of the Malvolence?


----------



## C. Hook (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> Saxton and Wong are physicists, especially the former whose specality is Astrophysics. And they used a shitload of quantification, for their calculation so they aren't random ass numbers pulled out of a "hat".



Isn't Wong an engineer?


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> And this was during the Dominon Wars correct? After this device was shown and countered, did they ever use it again? Was it a mainstay in the fleets of those regional powers of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants?
> 
> What is it's range? Total power? Is it more impressive than the fleet disabling Ion Cannon of the Malvolence?



Hmm, hard to place it in power. It completely shut down the power systems on D'deridex class warbirds which are themselves comparable to the Galaxy class. It was fielded in torpedo format, so we're talking standard Trek ship to ship scale, hitting ships as small as the Defiant though that may have been due to sheer numbers. I think they needed to steal one to devise a counter for it because the Klingon fix was to archaic for them but once they did it was rendered useless for the remander of the war, which wasn't really that long so I can't say if the Breen gotting working again at some later point. 


Malvolence wins on the wow factor but the Breen weapon is probably more useful (until countered) due to it's smaller size. Jem Hadar ships did need a several hour long refit to use it though.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

C. Hook said:


> Isn't Wong an engineer?



Yeah but he has a physics background. And I think both of them have degrees in Chemistry or some other complex stuff involving docterates in science, yatta yatta yatta.

Point, these guys are pretty fucking brilliant though.



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Hmm, hard to place it in power. It completely shut down the power systems on D'deridex class warbirds which are themselves comparable to the Galaxy class. It was fielded in torpedo format, so we're talking standard Trek ship to ship scale, hitting ships as small as the Defiant though that may have been due to sheer numbers. I think they needed to steal one to devise a counter for it because the Klingon fix was to archaic for them but once they did it was rendered useless for the remander of the war, which wasn't really that long so I can't say if the Breen gotting working again at some later point.
> 
> 
> Malvolence wins on the wow factor but the Breen weapon is probably more useful (until countered) due to it's smaller size. Jem Hadar ships did need a several hour long refit to use it though.



Interesting but you didn't totally answer my question. Was this weapon continually used and developed? Or was it rendered moot after they countered it?

Because the way Madcow is arguing for the Borg, I can just as well say that since superlaser technology does exist for LAAT troop transport/gunships and the Death Stars, the Galactic Empire simply upscales it for Star Destroyers.


----------



## C. Hook (May 11, 2009)

TWF said:


> Yeah but he has a physics background. And I think both of them have degrees in Chemistry or some other complex stuff involving docterates in science, yatta yatta yatta.
> 
> Point, these guys are pretty fucking brilliant though.



Agreed. He definitely knows his stuff when it actually comes to basic physics, as seen when he evaluated how blasters/phasers/whatever work.

Anyway, the Death Star has enough energy in the laser beam to destroy a planet and scatter it into pieces a LONG ways away from its original gravitational pull. The second Death Star fires faster, is bigger, and, when completed, will have no easy to access shaft. Both are hyperdrive able. Hyperdrive>>>>>>>>>>>>Warp. By simply zooming the Death Stars around the galaxy and destroying planet after planet, the Empire can win against pretty much everyone. The Borg lack defenses, their transwarp requires them to set up the transwarp, and they cannot evaluate technologies as alien as that of Hyperdrive, considering how much they struggled to assimilate the tech of a single Federation vessel.


----------



## Fang (May 11, 2009)

The Borg are also most importantly very very stupid since First Contact.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> They did at the start of TESB.
> 
> The communication range of a Federation ship is 22 light years, an Imperial ship is over 1000 light years. The TESB incident shows Imperial ships capable of scanning over light-hours from the edge of a solar system in Hoth.
> 
> The primary subspace sensors the Federation has is 25,000 year old tech in Star Wars aka ancient and fucking outdated.



I thought the fleet was using probe droids...

Still no proof on the 22 light year range.



> And that's ignorning jamming and ECM not too mention Imperial ships each have hyperwave recievers. The holonet provides real-time communication across an entire galaxy. The Federation is again limited to that 22 lightyear radius compared to the Empire's 1000 light year radius.
> 
> Ignorning as well that Imperial jamming can be powerful enough to reduce a starship's manuverability as Dondonna pointed out in the ANH novel.
> 
> They can literally outrace a distress signal to Earth from Beta Quadrant while in hyperspace.



I wasn't arguing anything.  In fact, I was more or less arguing _against_ Trek communications when it comes to range.



			
				C. Hook said:
			
		

> and they cannot evaluate technologies as alien as that of Hyperdrive, considering how much they struggled to assimilate the tech of a single Federation vessel.



  When was this?


----------



## enzymeii (May 12, 2009)

Near the end of Voyager, they had technology that could communicate with Starfleet from the Delta Quadrant, so I doubt communication is even an advantage the Empire has.


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> I thought the fleet was using probe droids...
> 
> Still no proof on the 22 light year range.



Yes because theyh were obviously using probe droids after jumping into the Hoth system when the Probe Droid that Han and Chewie found blew up right?

The fact that they can instanteously pick up the Echo Base and vice versa on Death Squadron indicates light-hour+ FTL scanners. And the fucking Holonet provides real-time communication across the galaxy.



> I wasn't arguing anything.  In fact, I was more or less arguing _against_ Trek communications when it comes to range.



Derp.



> When was this?



Considering how fucking long it took them to try and assimilate the Enterprise during First Contact.



enzymeii said:


> Near the end of Voyager, they had technology that could communicate with Starfleet from the Delta Quadrant, so I doubt communication is even an advantage the Empire has.



Rofl. They have 1000+ light-year radius of communication ignorning the Holonet, which provides instanteous real-time feed across the entire galaxy.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> Interesting but you didn't totally answer my question. Was this weapon continually used and developed? Or was it rendered moot after they countered it?


I honestly can't say. It seemed moot once the Federation and Romulans got their hands on the one Damar and co stole but the war only lasted a few months past that point so the Breen may have developed it further or they could have been forced to abandon it altogether when they surrendered. 



> Because the way Madcow is arguing for the Borg, I can just as well say that since superlaser technology does exist for LAAT troop transport/gunships and the Death Stars, the Galactic Empire simply upscales it for Star Destroyers.



IIRC they did just that anyways. Lol Eclipse, lol Sovereign.




enzymeii said:


> Near the end of Voyager, they had technology that could communicate with Starfleet from the Delta Quadrant, so I doubt communication is even an advantage the Empire has.


That was stolen tech anyways. The Hirogen made it and it was just normal Trek communications tech spread accross a huge area. If the relay stations were destroyed the whole system would collapse. Borg have much better communications feats.


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Nah I didn't mean an Eclipse scale superlaser, I meant replacing quad and dual turbolaser turrets with superlaser scaled ones for ships of the line. 

Anyways lol Kaut Drive Yards has a solar system encompassing dry and space docks and multiple worlds outside that are either directly or indirectly shipyard producers and developers as well.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> Nah I didn't mean an Eclipse scale superlaser, I meant replacing quad and dual turbolaser turrets with superlaser scaled ones for ships of the line.


I can't believe no one thought of that... That would be so evil!

Anyways.
Breen weapon
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlbEzNHvrUE[/YOUTUBE]
Only 1 ship wasn't affected.

Odyssey experiences the poloron beams at 7:24
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFmJ6h8sbFc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Neuotranium grade armor on those Imp cap ships will likely prove a problem since they were built that way to endure ardous hyperspace jumps.

That said, on a side tangent, the Jem'Hadar are fucking pathetic soldiers.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> Neuotranium grade armor on those Imp cap ships will likely prove a problem since they were built that way to endure ardous hyperspace jumps.


If they were smart and aimed right for the bridge... Wait, nevermind...



> That said, on a side tangent, the Jem'Hadar are fucking pathetic soldiers.


In this particular case they were faking on orders.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNo_zgc3EE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Nah I meant in general the Jem'Hadar are pretty pathetic. Not too mention in general Star Trek soldiers are pretty horrid. Especially the Borg, they are so advanced, yet face to face confrontation is them just clubbing people.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 12, 2009)

How long would the franchise have lasted without all that PIS?


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

I don't know how many times did Q have to save humanity or the Voyager or some other god race for that matter.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 12, 2009)

Even the Profits handed out a cosmic bailout or 2.


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Don't doubt it. The Federation and her allies surviving all the time can only be attributed as such.


----------



## masamune1 (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> Interesting but you didn't totally answer my question. Was this weapon continually used and developed? Or was it rendered moot after they countered it?



That was at the end of _DS9_, which was pretty much the end of the main _Star Trek_ continuity for all intents and purposes. _Voyager_ went on but they did'nt know about any of this- all that was left were the last two _TNG_ movies.

In other words, there has been no opportunity to use it. If they have developed it, we won't know about it.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 12, 2009)

TWF said:


> Yes because theyh were obviously using probe droids after jumping into the Hoth system when the Probe Droid that Han and Chewie found blew up right?
> 
> The fact that they can instanteously pick up the Echo Base and vice versa on Death Squadron indicates light-hour+ FTL scanners. And the fucking Holonet provides real-time communication across the galaxy.



Ok, light-hour+.  If you are right about Star Trek's sensors able to instantly detect any communications within 22 light years thing, that is still way above SW scanner range.

BTW, _still_ no proof on the 22 light year range.



> Derp.



Ok... I don't see the reason for this.  If you thought I was arguing something, well, I wasn't, and you should have no reason for this.  If you mean that it was obvious that I wasn't arguing anything, then why the pointless counter-argument you typed?



> Considering how fucking long it took them to try and assimilate the Enterprise during First Contact.



That was, as you are so happy to point out, a tactical shortcoming on the Borg's part.  It had nothing to do with the Borg's ability to analyze and assimilate technology.



> Rofl. They have 1000+ light-year radius of communication ignorning the Holonet, which provides instanteous real-time feed across the entire galaxy.



And in the Trekverse exists the Hirogen subspace communication network, which allows instant communication across the Delta Quadrant and into the Alpha Quadrant.  It's inferior to the Holonet, though.

BTWroceed with caution, but post away!

Second sentence: By transmission through subspace rather than normal space, subspace communication permitted the sending of data and messages across interstellar distances faster than the speed of light.


----------



## C. Hook (May 12, 2009)

When was the last time the Borg assimilated the technology of a completely alien technology that uses another dimension as a means of travel? Keep in mind that the Imperial's technology is NOTHING like that of the Federation.

The Borg still use warp in addition to transwarp; just grabbing a hyperdrive ship and somehow being able to copy the tech is a no-limits fallacy.

As for them replicating the firepower of Star Wars ships, that is still insignificant when the Empire far outnumbers the Borg and hyperdrive still outspeeds the Borg.

Any arguments about transporters being effective in combat are moot after transporters were stopped by shielding, radiation, special rocks, and electro-magnetism.

Whether this is a rapestomp or not, the Empire wins, by sheer value of numbers, industrial capacity, superior speed, and superior firepower.


----------



## Fang (May 12, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Ok, light-hour+.  If you are right about Star Trek's sensors able to instantly detect any communications within 22 light years thing, that is still way above SW scanner range.



Which is why battle ranges for Star Trek are under a dozen kilometers where as SW ships can bombard planets from across entire solar systems and consider hundreds of kilometers to be "point-blank".




> BTW, _still_ no proof on the 22 light year range.



Because this range has nothing to do with the Empire when it comes to *communication range and limits*, for the Federation, not the Galactic Empire.

Anyway Federation starships have a range of 22.68 light-years without subspace relays to bounce their transmissions across a network of other relays and communication devices.

Imperial ships have over a 100 lightyears and every ship is equipped with a holonet transmitter/receiever.



> Ok... I don't see the reason for this.  If you thought I was arguing something, well, I wasn't, and you should have no reason for this.  If you mean that it was obvious that I wasn't arguing anything, then why the pointless counter-argument you typed?



What the hell are you babbling about? I said the Federation starships have a communication radius of 22 lightyears, without bouncing transmissions off subspace relays. 

In comparison, Star Wars ships have a range of 100 light-years. The extra zero was a mistake on my part. But all of their capital ships have that.



> That was, as you are so happy to point out, a tactical shortcoming on the Borg's part.  It had nothing to do with the Borg's ability to analyze and assimilate technology.



Hello Voth.



> And in the Trekverse exists the Hirogen subspace communication network, which allows instant communication across the Delta Quadrant and into the Alpha Quadrant.  It's inferior to the Holonet, though.



When has this been instanteous, post evidence.



> Second sentence: By transmission through subspace rather than normal space, subspace communication permitted the sending of data and messages across interstellar distances faster than the speed of light.



I was comparing the communications capabilities of a SW ship to a ST one. Not relays or Holonet comparsions in general. The entire fucking point was that those packets of data at FTL speeds would be sluggish as a Hyperdrive equipped ship, which can cross the galaxy in mere hours, can outrace it at a tremendous range.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> Hello Voth.


That's not fair! The Voth are clearly superior to the Borg.





> When has this been instanteous, post evidence.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOGTb0QBzA[/YOUTUBE]

Why am I the one posting youtube links?


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 13, 2009)

C. Hook said:


> When was the last time the Borg assimilated the technology of a completely alien technology that uses another dimension as a means of travel? Keep in mind that the Imperial's technology is NOTHING like that of the Federation.



Ok... that doesn't stop the Borg from assimilating it.



> The Borg still use warp in addition to transwarp; just grabbing a hyperdrive ship and somehow being able to copy the tech is a no-limits fallacy.



Ah, but doing so is the nature of the Borg.  They have their limits- Species 8472's biotech- but the Empire doesn't have that.



> As for them replicating the firepower of Star Wars ships, that is still insignificant when the Empire far outnumbers the Borg and hyperdrive still outspeeds the Borg.
> 
> Any arguments about transporters being effective in combat are moot after transporters were stopped by shielding, radiation, special rocks, and electro-magnetism.
> 
> Whether this is a rapestomp or not, the Empire wins, by sheer value of numbers, industrial capacity, superior speed, and superior firepower.



I basically agree with all of this. 



TWF said:


> Which is why battle ranges for Star Trek are under a dozen kilometers where as SW ships can bombard planets from across entire solar systems and consider hundreds of kilometers to be "point-blank".



Incorrect about ST weapons ranges.

"The Nebula-class had a maximum effective weapons range exceeding 300,000 kilometers. (TNG: "The Wounded")"

Source

That's inferior to SW, but if SW fired from lightminutes away, it would give ST ships the chance to evade the lasers.




> Because this range has nothing to do with the Empire when it comes to *communication range and limits*, for the Federation, not the Galactic Empire.



Ok.



> Anyway Federation starships have a range of 22.68 light-years without subspace relays to bounce their transmissions across a network of other relays and communication devices.
> 
> Imperial ships have over a 100 lightyears and every ship is equipped with a holonet transmitter/receiever.



You don't like citing sources, do you?







> What the hell are you babbling about? I said the Federation starships have a communication radius of 22 lightyears, without bouncing transmissions off subspace relays.
> 
> In comparison, Star Wars ships have a range of 100 light-years. The extra zero was a mistake on my part. But all of their capital ships have that.



You made a response when to something that wasn't even an argument, and then derped when I explained that it wasn't.  There was no reason for either.



> Hello Voth.



Ok, what about them?



> When has this been instanteous, post evidence.



Why should I provide evidence when you have posted none of your own?

Anyway, see Deathsaurer's post.



> I was comparing the communications capabilities of a SW ship to a ST one. Not relays or Holonet comparsions in general. The entire fucking point was that those packets of data at FTL speeds would be sluggish as a Hyperdrive equipped ship, which can cross the galaxy in mere hours, can outrace it at a tremendous range.



Ok.  I never disagreed.


----------



## C. Hook (May 13, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Ok... that doesn't stop the Borg from assimilating it.
> 
> Ah, but doing so is the nature of the Borg.  They have their limits- Species 8472's biotech- but the Empire doesn't have that.



But it's a no limits fallacy unless you can come up with a case of the Borg being able to replicate completely different tech that is NOTHING like their own. Hyperdrive uses another dimension, different propulsion, is faster... 

As for replicating the weaponry, that would probably happen.



Manw? S?limo said:


> I basically agree with all of this.



Then we have nothing to argue there.


----------



## masamune1 (May 13, 2009)

C. Hook said:


> But it's a no limits fallacy unless you can come up with a case of the Borg being able to replicate completely different tech that is NOTHING like their own. Hyperdrive uses another dimension, different propulsion, is faster...



Would'nt they just need to grab and assimilate some random Imperial fodder who has even a basic grasp of the tech?


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> Which is why battle ranges for Star Trek are under a dozen kilometers where as SW ships can bombard planets from across entire solar systems and consider hundreds of kilometers to be "point-blank".



This:

Is "almost in range" for the Falcon.

Compare that to ST ranges which are consistently over 100,000km.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

Oh yes, let's compair fighters to capital ships... Cause there is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea. FFS!


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Oh yes, let's compair fighters to capital ships... Cause there is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea. FFS!



It's the same basic technology in both the Falcon and the Empire's capitol ships.  If you want to draw a comparison, just power-scale a Starfleet shuttle's vastly superior range (to the Falcon) up to a Starfleet Capitol ship like the Enterprise.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> It's the same basic technology in both the Falcon and the Empire's capitol ships.  If you want to draw a comparison, just power-scale a Starfleet shuttle's vastly superior range (to the Falcon) up to a Starfleet Capitol ship like the Enterprise.



Upscaling doesn't work linearly in ships. Star Destroyers have guns the size of the Falcon. Not to mention we have no scale for that pic anyways.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Upscaling doesn't work linearly in ships. Star Destroyers have guns the size of the Falcon. Not to mention we have no scale for that pic anyways.




The exact scale of the picture hardly matters.  We know the size of tie fighters, and anyone can see that it can't be more than a couple of kilometers away.

As for SW capitol ships, they have never been observed to have tremendous ranges either.  Outside EU books and technical manuals, we have never seen a cannon source giving them anything near the range of ST weapons.  In the battle of Endor, we can clearly see the SD's in the distance through the rebel ships' windows, yet they have to close the gap with fighters, rather than fighting with the capitol ships' guns:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMvadAFqLQ[/YOUTUBE]
In fact, the SD's don't start firing until the rebels are right on top of them.  We also observes similar ranges in the battle of Coruscant:

Nothing suggests SW capitol ships have a range greater than a few hundred km.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> The exact scale of the picture hardly matters.  We know the size of tie fighters, and anyone can see that it can't be more than a couple of kilometers away.


The exact scale does matter because a gun twice the size requires several times more power and thus the range is several times greater. Simple upscaling doesn't work.



> technical manuals, we have never seen a cannon source giving them anything near the range of ST weapons.


Those tech manuals are G canon my friend, deal with it.



> G-canon is George Lucas Canon; the six Episodes and anything directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas (including unpublished production notes from him or his production department that are never seen by the public). Elements originating with Lucas in the movie novelizations, *reference books*, and other sources are also G-canon, though anything created by the authors of those sources is C-canon. When the matter of changes between movie versions arises, the most recently released editions are deemed superior to older ones, as they correct mistakes, improve consistency between the two trilogies, and express Lucas's current vision of the Star Wars universe most closely. The deleted scenes included on the DVDs are also considered G-canon (when they're not in conflict with the movie).[1]







> In the battle of Endor, we can clearly see the SD's in the distance through the rebel ships' windows, yet they have to close the gap with fighters, rather than fighting with the capitol ships' guns


Lolwut? Palpatine told the fleet not to engage...





> In fact, the SD's don't start firing until the rebels are right on top of them.


No shit, they were just supposed to sit there then all of a sudden the whole fleet comes at them...


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLYyE1S1_M[/YOUTUBE]
Perhaps you'd like to explain just what is causing those blasts in the back of the Imperial fleet at 2:40 considering it's long before the Rebels engaged the Star Destroyers.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

ECM from the Battle of Endor in the RoTJ novelization and Technical Commentaries also point out that the ISDs were unable to bare their main/heavy guns on the Alliance fleet.

And the RoTJ novel states that the Alliance feet was greater than "the depth of human vision".

That said, scaling does matter. A 19.5 kilometer SSD looked like a pinprick from the distance of the Rebel fleet.

The film and novel are both very specific: Thousands of kilometers became point blank which was referenced as "hundreds of kilometers" which was a disadvantage more for the Imperial fleet than the Alliance counterpart.


----------



## Genyosai (May 13, 2009)

The first post said only EU wasn't allowed, right, so technical manuals are fine for this thread?

Unless of course, Tech Manuals count as being "Expanded Universe". It's just the books I think that are EU.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

Genyosai said:


> The first post said only EU wasn't allowed, right, so technical manuals are fine for this thread?
> 
> Unless of course, Tech Manuals count as being "Expanded Universe". It's just the books I think that are EU.


Refrence books are G canon same as the movies.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

Source/reference books and the Technical Commentaries aren't EU. Same with the film novelizations.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> The exact scale does matter because a gun twice the size requires several times more power and thus the range is several times greater. Simple upscaling doesn't work.



I wasn't talking about the scale of guns, I was talking about the scale of the tie-fighter compared to the Falcon.  Just to clarify, you are agreeing that small ships in SW have shitty range?




> Those tech manuals are G canon my friend, deal with it.



But they're still lower on the pecking order than the movie, and since feats from the movies blatantly contradict the figures in the technical manuals (firing range, core power, weapons power, a SD getting one shotted by_ a fucking asteroid_, etc..), they should be thrown out, or at least delegated lower.

Actually, can you also give me a link to the manuals that state these figures you're quoting?  Not all tech manuals are a part of cannon, iirc.  I'd also like to know what the figures are based off of.




> Lolwut? Palpatine told the fleet not to engage...



The ties engaged...
Actually, tell me this: if the Empire has ships that can fire at the ranges you're talking about, then what's the purpose of fighter crafts in the SWU at all, if not to close gaps that the main guns can't reach?



> No shit, they were just supposed to sit there then all of a sudden the whole fleet comes at them...



If they could have started firing from a distance when the rebel fleet began to move at them, then why didn't they?


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> I wasn't talking about the scale of guns, I was talking about the scale of the tie-fighter compared to the Falcon.  Just to clarify, you are agreeing that small ships in SW have shitty range?



Starfighters have the range of multiple kilometers. 



> But they're still lower on the pecking order than the movie, and since feats from the movies blatantly contradict the figures in the technical manuals (firing range, core power, weapons power, a SD getting one shotted by_ a fucking asteroid_, etc..), they should be thrown out, or at least delegated lower.



Wrong wrong and again fucking wrong. You were proven wrong on all of these, stop bitching. Technical Commentaries and Source-Books take their evidence directly and only from the films and film novelizations.



> Actually, can you also give me a link to the manuals that state these figures you're quoting?  Not all tech manuals are a part of cannon, iirc.  I'd also like to know what the figures are based off of.



All of the ICS and TC are absolutely canon.



> The ties engaged...
> Actually, tell me this: if the Empire has ships that can fire at the ranges you're talking about, then what's the purpose of fighter crafts in the SWU at all, if not to close gaps that the main guns can't reach?



We have nuclear missile submarines but we also have aircraft carriers and destroyers in the US navy. A fighter's job is to provide screening defenses for the capital ships, engage the enemy's starfighters and harrass the warships of the line.

Did you still ignore the evidence from Episode IV?



> If they could have started firing from a distance when the rebel fleet began to move at them, then why didn't they?



Because the fucking fleet of Star Destroyers were only there to herd the Rebel Alliance fleet into a trap for the second Death Star II to blast them apart. 



> That's after the fleet had already engaged with fighters



The fighters independent of the capital ships. You need to stop talking because you obviously have no idea of what is going on in Star Wars.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> Starfighters have the range of multiple kilometers.



Any proof of that from the movies, though?  The scan I posted of the Falcon's range didn't look like more than 2km at the absolute top.  And either way, that's well below the range of ST shuttles and runabouts. 



> Wrong wrong and again fucking wrong. You were proven wrong on all of these, stop bitching. *Technical Commentaries and Source-Books take their evidence directly and only from the films and film novelizations.*



Then just calm the fuck down and post some calculations based off of cannon feats _please_.


> All of the ICS and TC are absolutely canon.



Moreso than the movies? 



> We have nuclear missile submarines but we also have aircraft carriers and destroyers in the US navy. A fighter's job is to provide screening defenses for the capital ships, engage the enemy's starfighters and harrass the warships of the line.



That still doesn't explain why the Empire first engaged with fighters if they really can fight "from across a solar system" like you're claiming.



> Did you still ignore the evidence from Episode IV?



What evidence?  We see absolutely no long range capitol ship combat in that movie or any other movie.



> The fighters independent of the capital ships. You need to stop talking because you obviously have no idea of what is going on in Star Wars.



That was in response to Deathsaurer's post about the blasts going on before the Rebels engaged the Capitol ships.  The blasts are a result of the Rebels fighting the fleet of ties.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> I wasn't talking about the scale of guns, I was talking about the scale of the tie-fighter compared to the Falcon.


I'm saying that range will not scale the way you think.



> It's the same basic technology in both the Falcon and the Empire's capitol ships. If you want to draw a comparison, just power-scale a Starfleet shuttle's vastly superior range (to the Falcon) up to a Starfleet Capitol ship like the Enterprise.


This, well it's not gonna work. See, if the Falcon has a range of a couple of kilometers then a Star Destroyer with a gun hunderds of times the size of the Falcon's will have a range thousands of times greater. Do you know what the range and power difference is between 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles is? It's quite large and that's only about a 40% size increase.
someone else do the math...




> Just to clarify, you are agreeing that small ships in SW have shitty range?


Yes. A few kilometers doesn't impress me. Seriously.




> That was in response to Deathsaurer's post about the blasts going on before the Rebels engaged the Capitol ships. The blasts are a result of the Rebels fighting the fleet of ties.


In the back of the Imperial fleet that they hadn't engaged yet? WTF?


TWF got the rest of it...


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Any proof of that from the movies, though?  The scan I posted of the Falcon's range didn't look like more than 2km at the absolute top.  And either way, that's well below the range of ST shuttles and runabouts.







> Then just calm the fuck down and post some calculations based off of cannon feats _please_.



I've already provided evidence with others in all of these recent Star Wars threads of the feats the individual anti-starfighter turbolasers showed in the Hoth asteroid belt and then some.

Not too mention Jango Fett's blaster cannons in action, his sesmic charges and the missiles he fired at Obi-Wan during the Genosis asteroid belt scene as well.



> Moreso than the movies?



They are the same as the fucking movies.



> That still doesn't explain why the Empire first engaged with fighters if they really can fight "from across a solar system" like you're claiming.



Good job at ignorning the part that the Star Destroyers weren't allowed to engage the Rebel fleet until the Alliance fighters and capital ships charged them. 

The fighters were just there to keep the Rebels away from the incomplete Death Star.



> What evidence?  We see absolutely no long range capitol ship combat in that movie or any other movie.



Revenge of the Sith, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi. 

And Attack of the Clones as well for that matter along with The Phantom Menace when the Trade Federation capital ships were blasting Padme's starship.



> That was in response to Deathsaurer's post about the blasts going on before the Rebels engaged the Capitol ships.  The blasts are a result of the Rebels fighting the fleet of ties.



You mean squadrons of ties engaging Rebel stafighters form multiple kilometers out before they were in the furball.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


>







> I've already provided evidence with others in all of these recent Star Wars threads of the feats the individual anti-starfighter turbolasers showed in the Hoth asteroid belt and then some.



Not gonna post then?  That's okay, I did a little research myself.  This site:

puts the SD's turbolasers in the 1-5kt range based on their asteroid destroying feats.  It should be noted that Photon Torpedo's have destroyed asteroids much larger than the ones in question here.



> Not too mention Jango Fett's blaster cannons in action, his sesmic charges and the missiles he fired at Obi-Wan during the Genosis asteroid belt scene as well.



His seismic charge was the only one that really caused a decent amount of destruction.  It cleaved some pretty big asteroids in half, but it's still no photon torpedo.


> They are the same as the fucking movies.



Are you seriously? 




> Good job at ignorning the part that the Star Destroyers weren't allowed to engage the Rebel fleet until the Alliance fighters and capital ships charged them.
> 
> The fighters were just there to keep the Rebels away from the incomplete Death Star.



Death Star had a shield, dude.  Emperor was too worried about it at that point.




> Revenge of the Sith, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi.



Just saying names of movies doesn't make you win the argument, you know.



> And Attack of the Clones as well for that matter along with The Phantom Menace when the Trade Federation capital ships were blasting Padme's starship.



I'll look up that feat.



> You mean squadrons of ties engaging Rebel stafighters form multiple kilometers out before they were in the furball.



No... they were definitely right on top of them.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

Here's a picture of the TF ships firing at Amidala:

Doesn't look like more than a couple hundred km to me.  Pretty consistent with the rest of the movies in terms of range.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> No... they were definitely right on top of them.



Um, no.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMvadAFqLQ[/YOUTUBE]




> Doesn't look like more than a couple hundred km to me. Pretty consistent with the rest of the movies in terms of range.


You know we never, ever saw the biggest guns on a Star Destroyer fire right? Guns dozens of times bigger than those quad cannons.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Um, no.
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMvadAFqLQ[/YOUTUBE]



*2:03* enemy ships spotted.  "It's a trap!"
*2:07* Lando and some other fighters begin to fly towards the SD's.
*2:09* "Fighter's coming in".  They can't be more than a km or two away by the time they begin firing.  Perfectly consistent with the Falcon picture I posted earlier.
*2:14* Rebels fighters flying through a hoard to Ties.
*2:20* Lando orders the other fighters to "draw their fire away from the cruisers".  Obviously referring to the ties.
*2:27* We see some ties doing a fly-by on some Rebel cruisers.

Not seeing any long range combat from the fighters or capitol ships.




> You know we never, ever saw the biggest guns on a Star Destroyer fire right? Guns dozens of times bigger than those quad cannons.



What then, are you guys claiming their range to be?  And what are you basing it off of?  I think TWF citing "hundreds" of km, which is still miniscule compared to the many instances of ST ships firing at over _a hundred thousand_ km.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


>



:snorlax:



> Not gonna post then?  That's okay, I did a little research myself.  This site:
> 
> puts the SD's turbolasers in the 1-5kt range based on their asteroid destroying feats.  It should be noted that Photon Torpedo's have destroyed asteroids much larger than the ones in question here.



Photon and Quantum torpedoes have a range in the mid two digit megatons. Light turbolasers are three times higher.

And nothing in Star Trek has destroyed asteroids the sizes that the Star Deestroyers and Slave 1 were casually doing so.



These are widely accepted to be the at absolute minimum for turbolasers. And everyone knows throughout the rest of the films and EU, that these are way too low end.



> His seismic charge was the only one that really caused a decent amount of destruction.  It cleaved some pretty big asteroids in half, but it's still no photon torpedo.



It destroyed large asteroids in a diameter of more than a dozen kilometers. And his torpedo did outright destroyed a planetoid size asteroid that Obi-Wan used for cover.



> Are you seriously?



Am I serious? Of fucking course I am.



> Death Star had a shield, dude.  Emperor was too worried about it at that point.



Wrong again, for the uptenth time. The Imperial Fleet was to hold and not engage the Rebel Alliance until the Emperor's signal and that was for them to herd the Rebel fleet toward the second Death Star. This is ignorning the shield generator on the moon of Endor.



> Just saying names of movies doesn't make you win the argument, you know.



No shit, but ignorning outright stated and visual evidence in the films is also pretty pathetic and bad in form.



> I'll look up that feat.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> What then, are you guys claiming their range to be?  And what are you basing it off of?  I think TWF citing "hundreds" of km, which is still miniscule compared to the many instances of ST ships firing at over _a hundred thousand_ km.



Not once in any of the Star Trek canon films or shows did any single Trek ship ever engage in combat ranges of a thousand kilometers, or even a hundred.

Not even a single educated Trek fan ever made this claim on SD.net 

3:15: Imperial Officer - We're in attack position now sir. 
3:16: Admiral Piett - Hold here.
3:18: Executor's Captain - We're not going to attack?
3:19: Admiral Piett - I have my orders from the Emperor himself. He has something special in plan. We only need to keep them here from escaping.

And he says this with the Rebel fleet engaged away from their ships from over thousands of kilometers. What the hell are you talking about.



Now I know your lying through your teeth in the same way you did with the Revenge of the Sith novelization quote.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Not seeing any long range combat from the fighters or capitol ships.


I dunno what the range is. It's rather unquntifiable without external scale at the point they start to exchange fire. At the speed they are moving kilometers doesn't sound unfeasible. So as such I shall default to the given reference materials.




> What then, are you guys claiming their range to be?


Hell if I know... Given what I do know about range increasing with the size of the round it's massive. So, as above, I default to the reference materials. I'd certainly like to see the exact numbers.



> And what are you basing it off of?


Ok, I'll try this again. Given the size of them compaired to other smaller weapons the power required to operate them is leagues above those weapons in turn making their range that much greated aswell. That's just the way physics works.



> I think TWF citing "hundreds" of km, which is still miniscule compared to the many instances of ST ships firing at over _*a hundred thousand*_ km.


Youtube link? I need a refresher.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

No Trek warship has ever did "hundreds of thousands" of kilometers at weapon ranges.

And hundreds was considered point blank, and we can reasonably assume that the jamming and ECM along with the range was why those Star Destroyers couldn't use their main guns when the Rebel capital ships engaged them at those ranges.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 13, 2009)

Read my last post.



Manw? S?limo said:


> Incorrect about ST weapons ranges.
> 
> "The Nebula-class had a maximum effective weapons range exceeding 300,000 kilometers. (TNG: "The Wounded")"
> 
> ...


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> Photon and Quantum torpedoes have a range in the mid two digit megatons. Light turbolasers are three times higher.
> 
> *And nothing in Star Trek has destroyed asteroids the sizes that the Star Deestroyers and Slave 1 were casually doing so.*
> 
> ...






You can't even see the torpedo anymore as it approaches the asteroid.



Point is, that Asteroid looks a lot bigger than the ones the SD was kicking around.  Also, Tuvok was expecting to vaporize that asteroid, but it also contained an computerized navigational system and artificial alloys.

Here's another:






> It destroyed large asteroids in a diameter of more than a dozen kilometers. And his torpedo did outright destroyed a planetoid size asteroid that Obi-Wan used for cover.



Planetoid sized?  I don't think so.  It was big, but no planetoid.


> Am I serious? Of fucking course I am.



Just making sure.  Okay, the manuals are movies now 

On a serious note, I respect the validity of the cannon, I'm just making the point that if figures contradict, then we should defer to movies as primary cannon and movies only.  Just because Chee says manuals are G-cannon doesn't mean they can't contradict the movies.



> Wrong again, for the uptenth time. The Imperial Fleet was to hold and not engage the Rebel Alliance until the Emperor's signal and that was for them to herd the Rebel fleet toward the second Death Star. This is ignorning the shield generator on the moon of Endor.



I agree that there's nothing directly suggesting they can't fire over the distance, just nothing to suggest that they _can_ either.  Also, there are no other instances of ships firing that far in the movies, so inductive reasoning should tell us that they can't.


----------



## enzymeii (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> No Trek warship has ever did "hundreds of thousands" of kilometers at weapon ranges.
> 
> And hundreds was considered point blank, and we can reasonably assume that the jamming and ECM along with the range was why those Star Destroyers couldn't use their main guns when the Rebel capital ships engaged them at those ranges.



*0:58* Opening fire at 300,000km:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPj33erpKRY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

Okay, and this somehow magically supercedes 99% of the battles in the rest of TNG, TOS, Deep Space 9, the films or Voyager? You don't get one high end feat that isn't going to invalidate dozens upon dozens of others that never show that kind of range.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 13, 2009)

TWF said:


> Okay, and this somehow magically supercedes 99% of the battles in the rest of TNG, TOS, Deep Space 9, the films or Voyager?



Warp 10 yo, it's totally canon. This should lead to some funny debate.


----------



## Fang (May 13, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> *snip*



That's it?



> Point is, that Asteroid looks a lot bigger than the ones the SD was kicking around.  Also, Tuvok was expecting to vaporize that asteroid, but it also contained an computerized navigational system and artificial alloys



So what? Iron-nickel rock is harder to vaporize than metals.



> Here's another:



Not very impressive.



> Planetoid sized?  I don't think so.  It was big, but no planetoid.



You honestly need to get your eyes checked if that's what you think.



> Just making sure.  Okay, the manuals are movies now



Since your are roughly either being purposely block-headed I will lay this out one more time. 

The source, technical and reference books are based only off the films and film novelizations statements, feats and shownings. They are the same canon since they are based off the film/film novelizations themselve.



> On a serious note, I respect the validity of the cannon, I'm just making the point that if figures contradict, then we should defer to movies as primary cannon and movies only.  Just because Chee says manuals are G-cannon doesn't mean they can't contradict the movies.



Except they don't contradict the films or film novelizations at all. Stop whinning so much. First you were complaining that the source, reference and technical sources were not G-canon. Then when you were proven repeatedly wrong, you say they contradict.

Terrible.



> I agree that there's nothing directly suggesting they can't fire over the distance, just nothing to suggest that they _can_ either.  Also, there are no other instances of ships firing that far in the movies, so inductive reasoning should tell us that they can't.



Further proof you don't know anything at all about Star Wars. Death Squadron at the start of The Empire Strikes Back was going to bombard the shield generators of Echo Base on the sixth planet in the Hoth system from across the edge of the system's outskirts.



> Still well under the range of ST weapons (I'll reply to your next post in just a moment).



Trade Federation warships prove otherwise? Check.
Battle of Endor with Imperial and Alliance warships? Check.
Revenge of the Sith between CIS and OR navies? Check.
Source/reference/technical books + film novelizations? Check.

Still wrong, you are, as Yoda would say.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

TWF said:


> Okay, and this somehow magically supercedes 99% of the battles in the rest of TNG, TOS, Deep Space 9, the films or Voyager? You don't get one high end feat that isn't going to invalidate dozens upon dozens of others that never show that kind of range.



What was that "style over substance fallacy" you cited earlier?  The feat stands.  Fleets are usually seen to engage at shorter ranges, but that doesn't prove they are limited to them, anymore than the "point-blank" ranges in RotS and RotJ proves that SW ships are limited to that range.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> What was that "style over substance fallacy" you cited earlier?  The feat stands.  Fleets are usually seen to engage at shorter ranges, but that doesn't prove they are limited to them, anymore than the "point-blank" ranges in RotS and RotJ proves that SW ships are limited to that range.


I find this massively ironic considering all the shit he has caught for using something in the same canon tier as the movies.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

On second thought, TWF's argument that Trek is only seen engaging at close ranges is probably a affirming the consquent fallacy.

A conditional we can agree on would probably go like this: "If Trek weapons are close range then we would only see Trek ships fight at close range".

However, if that is true, it would still be fallacious to turn it around and say "If we only see Trek ships fight at close range then Trek weapons must be close range".

Of course, I still have to prove that Trek weapons are long-range.  Which is what the clip from the TNG episode was for


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

TWF said:


> Okay, and this somehow magically supercedes 99% of the battles in the rest of TNG, TOS, Deep Space 9, the films or Voyager? You don't get one high end feat that isn't going to invalidate dozens upon dozens of others that never show that kind of range.



Here- found a list of stated ranges with episode numbers:
Link removed
Really, ST ships are pretty consistently into the 50,000-200,000 range.  I could dig through youtube to find some more clips, but posting all the episodes is just easier.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

I would say be careful what you cite from that site (pun unintended), but those seem to be direct examples from episodes.

Let's see TWF try to say this goes against 99% of other feats now.


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> I would say be careful what you cite from that site (pun unintended), but those seem to be direct examples from episodes.
> 
> Let's see TWF try to say this goes against 99% of other feats now.



I realize that it's a highly pro-trek site, but it's the only place I could find a good list of weapon range examples.  Also, TWF has posted several SD.net links as "proof" so he can't really talk.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

Problem is, at that range Trek ships can easily evade the weapons fire.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

True, but closing the gap would be suicide.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

Actually, judging by the speed the Phoenix was going, hit-and-run tactics should suffice.  That video not only demonstrates weapons range, but relativistic sublight speeds.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> Here- found a list of stated ranges with episode numbers:
> Link removed
> Really, ST ships are pretty consistently into the 50,000-200,000 range.  I could dig through youtube to find some more clips, but posting all the episodes is just easier.



Not believing it all. Not too mention this site is run by one of Darkstar's friends, so no.

Deep Space Nine -Third Battle of Bajor contradicts this, Battle of Cardassia Prime, Federation and Dominion ships engaged in close visual ranges. 

Way of the Warrior from Deep Space Nine again, Klingon and Cardassian Fleets couldn't engage until in ranges under 10 kilometers.



Manwë Súlimo said:


> Let's see TWF try to say this goes against 99% of other feats now.



Because it does when randomely stated numbers completely contradict visual evidence. And cherrypicking a singular high-end feat for Star Trek that consistantly is contradicted by others in evidence is pretty bad.

Now be quiet.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Actually, judging by the speed the Phoenix was going, hit-and-run tactics should suffice.  That video not only demonstrates weapons range, but relativistic sublight speeds.



Wrong, on so many levels.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

Affirming the consequent fallacy, style over substance fallacy, etc.

Now, about the Phoenix's combat speed- it was about 300,000 km from the Cardassian ships when in weapons range.  The speed of light is  299,792,458 m/s, or  299,792.458 km/s.  Now, it's razor close, but maintaining a distance of 300,000 km should give Trek ships the chance to evade the lightspeed turbolaser fire (assuming that it is in fact lightspeed) while being just within weapons range.  The Trek ships will need good pilots, though.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

So Bender, how about those repeated incidents in Voyager, TOS and Deep Space Nine and most of them in TNG that contradict this one incident that I mentioned? Are you going to continue to spout this inane bullshit while trying to protect a failing argument?


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

Are you so dense that you don't see my answer to that on this very page?  I hate having to repeat myself.

Your argument that Trek is only seen engaging at close ranges is probably a affirming the consquent fallacy.

A conditional we can agree on would probably go like this: "If Trek weapons are close range then we would most often see Trek ships fight at close range".

However, if that is true, it would still be fallacious to turn it around and say "If we most often see Trek ships fight at close range then Trek weapons must be close range".

Of course, I still have to prove that Trek weapons are long-range by showing that they have fought at long range. Which is what the clip from the TNG episode was for.  

Now, care to actually try and disprove that argument, instead of just calling it stupid?


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Are you so dense that you don't see my answer to that on this very page?  I hate having to repeat myself.
> Your argument that Trek is only seen engaging at close ranges is probably a affirming the consquent fallacy.



Wrong.



> A conditional we can agree on would probably go like this: "If Trek weapons are close range then we would most often see Trek ships fight at close range".



Fallacy fallacy.



> However, if that is true, it would still be fallacious to turn it around and say "If we most often see Trek ships fight at close range then Trek weapons must be close range".



Wrong.



> Of course, I still have to prove that Trek weapons are long-range by showing that they have fought at long range. Which is what the clip from the TNG episode was for.
> 
> Now, care to actually try and disprove that argument, instead of just calling it stupid?



This is why you are always wrong.

Star Trek: The Next Generation episode " The Wounded " 

DATA: The warship is three hundred thousand kilometers from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. *The Phoenix has taken a direct hit ... the Phoenix is beginning evasive maneuvers ... it has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship* ... the Phoenix has powered up with both phasers and photon torpedoes ... the Phoenix is firing photon torpedoes. 

Now here's the problem. The display is two dimensional and still shows the Phoenix to be will within the range of the Cardassian warship's weapon range. Also they were traveling at Warp speeds, and the battle was fought entirely with torpedoes. 



Now considering the *Target* had to close in the gap, and fire it's torpedos, the 300,000 kilometer range is explained, when contradicting visual evidence overrides dialogue, that the Phoenix jumps away from the torpedos.

And this is when the Enterprise engages the Cardassian ship earlier in the same fucking episode.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Actually, judging by the speed the Phoenix was going, hit-and-run tactics should suffice.  That video not only demonstrates weapons range, but relativistic sublight speeds.


Ok what? How do you think that will help? Do you even know the sublight speed of a SD to assume that?


@TWF, I say let them have it as long as they drop the tech book arguement.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Just be the nice guy and drop evidence that further disproves these two? I don't know....


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

TWF said:


> Not believing it all. Not too mention this site is run by one of Darkstar's friends, so no.



What don't you believe?  Do you want me to dig through youtube and find all of the clips that the list mentions?  

Also, ad hominem fallacy- attacking the arguer and not the argument, by saying that the evidence is invalid because of who posted it. 


> Deep Space Nine -Third Battle of Bajor contradicts this, Battle of Cardassia Prime, Federation and Dominion ships engaged in close visual ranges.



  This coming from the guy that just spent 3 pages defending the Battle of Endor ranges by saying the SD's could have attacked at that range, they just didn't want to?  Can't you see it's the same damn argument?  Just because we see them engaging at close range doesn't mean they _can't _engage at long range?



> Way of the Warrior from Deep Space Nine again, Klingon and Cardassian Fleets couldn't engage until in ranges under 10 kilometers.



link?



> Because it does when randomely stated numbers completely contradict visual evidence. And cherrypicking a singular high-end feat for Star Trek that consistantly is contradicted by others in evidence is pretty bad.
> 
> Now be quiet.



So?  Like I already said, SW tech manuals "contradict visual evidence" because we never see a ship firing from 10 light seconds away.  ST episodes are higher cannon for ST than SW manuals are for SW.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> 10 light seconds away.


Minutes, not seconds.



> ST episodes are higher cannon for ST than SW manuals are for SW.


No... Those manuals only print the info Lucas Film gives them. If you clicked on the source link for that turbolasers range you'd see that they couldn't do Amidala's ship from episode III because they weren't given the set info in time.


If you really want to play it that way I'll just say shows Roddenberry was directly involved in are more canon than those he had nothing to do with. Let's not go there shall we?


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> No... Those manuals only print the info Lucas Film gives them. If you clicked on the source link for that turbolasers range you'd see that they couldn't do Amidala's ship from episode III because they weren't given the set info in time.



I'm just saying that _if_ there was a contradiction, then we'd go with the movies, not ICS books.  

Anyway, my point was that it was ridiculous for TWF to be arguing against numerous instances of ST ships firing from 100,000+km on the basis of "sometimes we see ships fight close", while arguing SW ranges based on ICS books even though no direct evidence exists in the films.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> I'm just saying that _if_ there was a contradiction, then we'd go with the movies, not ICS books.


But there isn't one because we have never seen them bombard a planet or station which is what that long range is for (ever wonder why Vader said Ozzel came out of hyperspace too close to Hoth?), not starfleets. Sure they _could_ fire but the accuracy against moving targets at that distance would be shit. This works for both verses BTW, closer = better accuracy and more knockdown power. Remember, maximum range =/= maximum effective combat range. 



> Anyway, my point was that it was ridiculous for TWF to be arguing against numerous instances of ST ships firing from 100,000+km on the basis of "sometimes we see ships fight close", while arguing SW ranges based on ICS books even though no direct evidence exists in the films.


Really, you did it to him first. Turnabout is far play and all... Not very fun is it? I've tried to get him to drop it so...


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> But there isn't one because we have never seen them bombard a planet or station which is what that long range is for, not starfleets. Sure they _could_ fire but the accuracy against moving targets at that distance would be shit. This works for both verses BTW, closer = better accuracy and more knockdown power. Remember, maximum range =/= maximum effective combat range.



agreed



> Really, you did it to him first. Turnabout is far play and all... Not very fun is it? I've tried to get him to drop it so...



The important difference, though, is that there _are_ instances of both close range and long range combat in ST cannon.  TWF is denying one at the expense of the other.  In SW, we have _no_ instances of long-range combat vs statments from the ICS manuals that give some figures on maximum range, but not maximum effective range.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see where you're coming from with the ICS books being cannon and we just happened to not have a good example of long range combat, but you have to admit that one argument is stronger than the other.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> agreed


Glad that is settled.



> The important difference, though, is that there _are_ instances of both close range and long range combat in ST cannon.  TWF is denying one at the expense of the other.  In SW, we have _no_ instances of long-range combat vs statments from the ICS manuals that give some figures on maximum range, but not maximum effective range.


I can't speak for him so I dunno if I'm right on this but it seems to me he is holding a bit of a grudge over all the flack he caught over using G canon in this debate. It looked like you wanted your best numbers while trying to throw his out. 



> but you have to admit that one argument is stronger than the other.



I honestly saw them as equal. Both verses like much closer range for power and accuracy reasons. Just the way directed energy weapons work.


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I can't speak for him so I dunno if I'm right on this but it seems to me he is holding a bit of a grudge over all the flack he caught over using G canon in this debate. It looked like you wanted your best numbers while trying to throw his out.



He's the one that bean citing ridiculous figures in the first place (like it taking the entire Federation a week to shoot through a SD's shields)... but I might have gotten a little carried away with the debate myself.  I'll agree to letting the ICS range figures stand (starfighters still have shitty range though), and that the SD that was one-shotted by an asteroid was probably already damaged (by other asteroids though and not the ion cannon).  

I think both verses are probably closer in ship to ship combat than any of us thought going in.  SW and ST ships are both capable of fighting at long ranges, both have highly destructive weapons and good defenses, but I still stand by my first post in the thread that stated the Empire would win in an all out war (against the Alpha Quadrant races at least) but that the Enterprise would beat a single Star Destroyer based on superior maneuverability and other ST hax like transporters and deflectors.



> I honestly saw them as equal. Both verses like much closer range for power and accuracy reasons. Just the way directed energy weapons work.



Still, all g-cannon is not equal.  It's a sliding scale: movies>scripts>movie novelizations>ICS manuals.  An argument based on movie evidence should in theory (not saying this is the situation here) override an argument based on ICS manuals, even if they are all a part of the same level of cannon.

But you see it as you see it, and I see it as I see it.  I might have been a little silly earlier, but I was trying to make a point about cannon, not bash SW tech.  Apologies if I offended anyone.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> What don't you believe?  Do you want me to dig through youtube and find all of the clips that the list mentions?



Do as you please, the visual evidence of nominal effective ranges of ST warships are under hundred of kilometers or less. 



> Also, ad hominem fallacy- attacking the arguer and not the argument, by saying that the evidence is invalid because of who posted it.



You blatantly tried to misrepresent a quote from the RoTS novel then you repeatedly tried to deny the technical commentaries, guides and ICS.

You have no ground here to dismiss this as an ad homiem. 



> This coming from the guy that just spent 3 pages defending the Battle of Endor ranges by saying the SD's could have attacked at that range, they just didn't want to?  Can't you see it's the same damn argument?  Just because we see them engaging at close range doesn't mean they _can't _engage at long range?



You were the one ignorning objective visual evidence of the super star destroyer Executor engaging the entire Rebel fleet from thousands of kilometers in the film and in the novel. Same again with the Death Squadron's planned bombardment of the sixth planet in the Hoth system where Echo Base was in The Empire Strikes Back.



> link?



Search youtube yourself.



> So?  Like I already said, SW tech manuals "contradict visual evidence" because we never see a ship firing from 10 light seconds away.  ST episodes are higher cannon for ST than SW manuals are for SW.



Except you are wrong. The SW tech manuels and ICS are G-canon. The films are G-canon. It's the same level of canon. There is no contradiction because in fucking TESB and RoTJ we have capital ships engaging each other over several thousands of kilometers or performing light-hour bombardments.

Are you going to run back like a headless chicken complaining when proven wrong on the references and technical books are G-canon? All G-canon is the same, deal with it.



enzymeii said:


> He's the one that bean citing ridiculous figures in the first place (like it taking the entire Federation a week to shoot through a SD's shields)... but I might have gotten a little carried away with the debate myself.  I'll agree to letting the ICS range figures stand (starfighters still have shitty range though), and that the SD that was one-shotted by an asteroid was probably already damaged (by other asteroids though and not the ion cannon).



Let me know when a single Federation ship does over a gigaton of firepower, much less high teraton to petaton salvos or bombardments with their entire fleets, much less individual capital ships in Star Trek do that on their own.

Until then, with all canon, a Star Destroyer would mop the floor with the entire Alpha Quadrant on it's lonesome.



> I think both verses are probably closer in ship to ship combat than any of us thought going in.



Think again. There's a reason why Star Trek is scrub verse without Qs or the other god-races.



> SW and ST ships are both capable of fighting at long ranges, both have highly destructive weapons and good defenses



No.



> but I still stand by my first post in the thread that stated the Empire would win in an all out war (against the Alpha Quadrant races at least) but that the Enterprise would beat a single Star Destroyer based on superior maneuverability and other ST hax like transporters and deflectors.



Good thing transporterrs are regularly defeated by jamming, ECM, advanced technology, repeteadly different types or matter and energy and so forth. 

The rest is inane drivel.



> Still, all g-cannon is not equal.  It's a sliding scale: movies>scripts>movie novelizations>ICS manuals.  An argument based on movie evidence should in theory (not saying this is the situation here) override an argument based on ICS manuals, even if they are all a part of the same level of cannon.



Wrong. Now stop talking about Star Wars since you don't know anything about it's franchise.



> But you see it as you see it, and I see it as I see it.  I might have been a little silly earlier, but I was trying to make a point about cannon, not bash SW tech.  Apologies if I offended anyone.



Stop talking about a series you know nothing about. I'm still fucking laughing at you and Bender trying to misuse the Phoenix issue, ignore the light-hour range bombardments and the direct visual evidence in the films nad novelizations, (ignorning the ICS).


----------



## Herekic (May 14, 2009)

going by tech, I'd say things like the transporter and the replicators kinda give it to star trek.


they can teleport things from huge distances away(say, from orbit taking people off a planet's surface), and their replicators essentially give them unlimited...well, everything. food, clothes, drinks, pretty much anything they might need.


in SW we got things like moisture farmers trying to scrape together all the water they can, while in star trek any random guy could just replicate as much as he wanted of anything, including water.

these two technologies are pretty damn impressive


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Replicators are extermely limited technology and Star Wars has that technology anyway. They also are limited that they can't change matter into a different type through manipulation of sub-atomic particles.

That gives Star Trek no advantage whatsoever. Much less if they could, they would produce fleets of ships and starbases with it, which has never happened once in any Star Trek series or film. So for obvious reasons, it's nothing impressive.

Teleporters are the most over-rated and wanked argument for Star Trek. Like it has been shown repeatedly, shields defeat them, jamming defeats them, movement and electromagnetic events and other such instances like matter and movement defeat or nullify it.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Herekic said:


> and their replicators essentially give them unlimited...well, everything. food, clothes, drinks, pretty much anything they might need.



You probably don't wanna know how they work... And they can't replicate everything, mainly simple stuff (including what you listed). I assume it has to do with either a lack of power for more complex forms, or a lack of computer power to do the nessicary math. 


@TWF, come on man, I thought I had just cooled this thread down...


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Don't worry, UD, I've said my peace and I'm done responding to him.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> @TWF, come on man, I thought I had just cooled this thread down...



It's fine, I put him on ignore anyway.


----------



## Herekic (May 14, 2009)

> Replicators are extermely limited technology and Star Wars has that technology anyway. They also are limited that they can't change matter into a different type through manipulation of sub-atomic particles.



if they have that technology why are people farming water? water I'd imagine would be plenty simple enough to replicate.





> That gives Star Trek no advantage whatsoever. Much less if they could, they would produce fleets of ships and starbases with it, which has never happened once in any Star Trek series or film. So for obvious reasons, it's nothing impressive.



again, it's the fact of what it CAN do, not what it can't.

they can make food, water, tools, clothing and like things by pressing a button. they can just take one of these machines to any random planet they go, and they have all they need to survive. I fail to see how that ISN'T impressive.



as for the teleporters, yea, people in the verse can block them. they likely have tech created specifically to do so. how does that make the fact that they can teleport people off a planet and into orbit any less impressive?



this is not a fight, from what the OP said. it's a comparison of tech, and these two techs are very impressive. just because replicators can't make starships, and teleporters can be blocked by other trek technology, does not make these techs any less impressive.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Herekic said:


> if they have that technology why are people farming water? water I'd imagine would be plenty simple enough to replicate.



I don't know why you're using a desert planet outside the Republic/Empire as an example. Tatooine is a very poor planet with almost no natural resources. The reason people live there is because they don't have idiots like the Republic/Empire telling them how to live.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Herekic said:


> if they have that technology why are people farming water? water I'd imagine would be plenty simple enough to replicate.



Moisture farms on the ass end of the galaxy owned by poor peasents and families don't exactly have top grade technology available to them.



> again, it's the fact of what it CAN do, not what it can't.



What it can do isn't impressive. That's my point.



> they can make food, water, tools, clothing and like things by pressing a button. they can just take one of these machines to any random planet they go, and they have all they need to survive. I fail to see how that ISN'T impressive.



I see it more impressive that a galaxy spanning organization has civilian ships that can go from the outer rim to the galactic core in the matter of hours, traveling at hundreds of millions times the speed of light.



> as for the teleporters, yea, people in the verse can block them. they likely have tech created specifically to do so. how does that make the fact that they can teleport people off a planet and into orbit any less impressive?



Teleporters routinely fail at getting locks on moving targets. Jamming and any other sort of interference fucks them up. And it isn't just limited to just in-universe Trek technology.



> this is not a fight, from what the OP said. it's a comparison of tech, and these two techs are very impressive. just because replicators can't make starships, and teleporters can be blocked by other trek technology, does not make these techs any less impressive.



Yeah but it's comparing for example the Federation vs the Galactic Empire. One organization has under 200 member worlds and isn't the dominat power even in a single quadrant of their own galaxy. The other controls more than entire galaxy with over 10,000,000 member worlds. Ect...

A Star Destroyer does high teraton level barrages under an hour that can destroy a planet's crust and mantle. More than 30 Romulan and Klingon ships couldn't even replicate that feat even with four hours of sustained bombardment.

Star Wars, like it's name implies, is about wars and battles with the focus on combat. The other one is about exploration and pleasure pursuits to increase the luxeries of every day life, ect...


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

And on added side note for Replicators: They need raw resources and materials to convert into matter. And they work in a similar process to teleporters in Star Trek. But they can't change one set of matter into another state and can't do anything with energy.

Point: Quirk mentions how valuable and precious gold, silver and platinum, among other metals were to the Ferangi, capitalistic merchants from a capitalistic world (despite the Federation themselves being unabashed communists in all aspects of their own society), if Replicators really could do half the things some Trek fans claimed them to do, gold and platinum wouldn't be such a valuable commodity otherwise he would've replicated them.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

TWF said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Fallacy fallacy.
> 
> Wrong.



Ok, now care to prove I'm wrong when it comes to the logic, other than just saying it?



> This is why you are always wrong.
> 
> Star Trek: The Next Generation episode " The Wounded "
> 
> ...



Actually... for the time the Phoenix is out of range of the Cardassian ship, all the video does is show close ups of Picard, Riker, Data, and Maset.  They don't show the action on the tactical display at all.

Derp.



> And this is when the Enterprise engages the Cardassian ship earlier in the same fucking episode.



Doesn't prove a limit any more than RotS or RotJ battles prove limits for SW.



> Teleporters routinely fail at getting locks on moving targets.



Transwarp beaming FTW. 



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Ok what? How do you think that will help? Do you even know the sublight speed of a SD to assume that?



Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, their top speed is what is shown on screen, which is well below Trek speed, "The Wounded" feat or no.  And their maneuverability sucks.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMpQYflrj0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

6:50


----------



## Lord Stark (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Ok, now care to prove I'm wrong when it comes to the logic, other than just saying it?
> 
> 
> This is why you are always wrong.
> ...


nonononononono wrong all wrong.  When you see an aircraft in the sky and it seems to be moving at two miles an hour, it is in actuality moving at hundreds of miles per hour.  You cannot actually consider that SDs move at 20 miles an hour.  Thats stupid, the Millenium Falcon _on screen_ doesn't appear to move particularly fast.  But, if you had fucking Star Destroyers zipping about at slightly below light speed that would look silly.  Imagine how fast the fighter would have to look.  There are _fighters_ in Star Wars that dish out more damage then the most powerful Federation ships.  Do you realize how much more powerful Star Wars is then Star Trek.  Read the ICS.  An Acclamator can dish out power that outclasses any Star Trek weapons, imagine what the upper tier can do.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, their top speed is what is shown on screen, which is well below Trek speed, "The Wounded" feat or no.  And their maneuverability sucks.



We have no scale for their speed. All I could find was "a decent percent of the speed of light" which is too vague to be useful and had no listed source. As such we can't tell the speed of those turbolaser bolts which even at the speed of light would allow what, a couple miliseconds over a second? Can't even finish say _the enemy ship has opened fire_... Sadly, one of their favorite lines. To repeatedly take that sort of action to fire torpedos is, well crazy.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Ok, now care to prove I'm wrong when it comes to the logic, other than just saying it?



I have already.



> Actually... for the time the Phoenix is out of range of the Cardassian ship, all the video does is show close ups of Picard, Riker, Data, and Maset.  They don't show the action on the tactical display at all.
> 
> Derp.



Too bad the tactical screen did, and it says they engaged warp after the range was closed.

Try again.



> Doesn't prove a limit any more than RotS or RotJ battles prove limits for SW.



" Hundreds of kilometers " in both the RoTJ novel and film states to be point-blank range. 10 light-minute ranges for Venators in the RoTS ICS, light-hour bombardments from the edge of the Hoth solar system in TESB. 



> Transwarp beaming FTW.



Because this is routine right.



> Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, their top speed is what is shown on screen, which is well below Trek speed, "The Wounded" feat or no.  And their maneuverability sucks.



Star Destroyers achieving acceleration well beyond 3000gs. In fact a 22.5 year old Acclamator can achieve over 3500gs.




> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMpQYflrj0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 6:50



No. Also ignorning the two Star Destroyers chasing the Falcon in Episode IV and the Rebel X-Wings and Y-Wings covering multiple planetary distances in under a few minutes to engage the Death Star in the Yavin system.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 14, 2009)

While I never claimed the specifics of Star Destroyer speed, it's still clearly well under Trek ship speeds.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> While I never claimed the specifics of Star Destroyer speed, it's still clearly well under Trek ship speeds.



No it isn't. Not even close, Trek ships have a dismal record of tracking ships well under relativistic speeds in under a few kilometers, Star Wars has nothing to worry about when it comes to sublight speeds.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> While I never claimed the specifics of Star Destroyer speed


I don't think there are specifics sadly. If we knew how fast they were we could time the weapons, but nooooo...



> it's still clearly well under Trek ship speeds.


Even if it is it's not the SD you have to outrun, it's the guns. You can't just zip in and out before you get shot unless you have it timed and even then you can't make a single mistake. I for one wouldn't want to be in the military that decided this tactic was good...


----------



## enzymeii (May 14, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I don't think there are specifics sadly. If we knew how fast they were we could time the weapons, but nooooo...
> 
> 
> Even if it is it's not the SD you have to outrun, it's the guns. You can't just zip in and out before you get shot unless you have it timed and even then you can't make a single mistake. I for one wouldn't want to be in the military that decided this tactic was good...



What I was referring to earlier when I said superior maneuverability was the ST ships can do in-system maneuvers at warp speeds, while I don't think there's even anything in the EU to support SW ships using flt combat.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 14, 2009)

enzymeii said:


> What I was referring to earlier when I said superior maneuverability was the ST ships can do in-system maneuvers at warp speeds


While they can it's deemed risky even in craft as small as Runabouts. I knew exactly what you meant, I just wouldn't want to be on the ship ordered to do it. And it's still gotta be timed perfectly.



> while I don't think there's even anything in the EU to support SW ships using flt combat.


Hyperspace is too fast lulz.


----------



## Fang (May 14, 2009)

Star Wars ships routinely fight at relativistic speeds to lightspeed in EU. Even if the capital ships are stationary they can track and react to fighters and other crafts at those speeds, ect...

That said, its pretty sad when a Accalmator, a glorified troop transport boosts more firepower than most Federation fleets put together.


----------



## Caedus (May 14, 2009)

Meaning Star Wars win


----------



## Herekic (May 14, 2009)

> Meaning Star Wars win
> __________________



no, as it's not  fight, nor is it about how good their ships are. it's overall tech level.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 15, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Scotty did it with a rickety old shuttle.


That is soooo commonplace...




> Proof, please.


This
See propulsion.




> Video of these SDs, please, and I was speaking about capial ship speed, not fighter speed.


Come on, you can tell fighters aren't significantly faster than Star Destroyers...




> Actually, Acclamators may not have guns at all.


As someone in that thread pointed out none of the SDs in the OT have weapon turrets shown. Never stopped them from firing guns either. Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the thread.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 15, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> That is soooo commonplace...



Yes, there is a formula for it that makes it easy.





> Guys: free Coldplay Album
> See propulsion.



The only thing I see is "Maximum acceleration  >2,300 g", which has no citation.  Wookiepedia without citations proves nothing.

Edit:  Ok, I saw the source further down.  But the source is inaccurate on several things: 

"There were, however, some glaring errors throughout the book. For instance, the AT-AT is shown to be made by 'KURT' Drive Yards, and the A-Wing is said to be affiliated with the Galactic Empire. The book also described the Executor as being 12,800 meters long"

Guys: free Coldplay Album

Unreliable source of questionable canonicity.



> Come on, you can tell fighters aren't significantly faster than Star Destroyers...



Sure they are.  And definitely more maneuverable.



> As someone in that thread pointed out none of the SDs in the OT have weapon turrets shown. Never stopped them from firing guns either. Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the thread.



TWF brought up Acclamators, not me.  It's just the heavy guns on Acclamators brought up in the supposedly-cannon ICS are nonexistent in those screenshots.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 15, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Yes, there is a formula for it that makes it easy.


So easy it's rarely done and highly frowned upon.



> the AT-AT is shown to be made by 'KURT' Drive Yards


I don't consider a 1 letter typo a big deal. Kuat is claerly the intended location.



> and the A-Wing is said to be affiliated with the Galactic Empire.


That one is bad.



> The book also described the Executor as being 12,800 meters long"


Blame Lucas and Chee for this one. The 19k length was only made offical in 04.

12.8km was the best number when the book was made.



> Unreliable source of questionable canonicity.


You've only got 1 real gripe about it.



> Sure they are.


O'rly? That's why the Falcon left all those ISDs in the dust right?



> And definitely more maneuverable.


Obviously...



> TWF brought up Acclamators, not me.


I mean the existance of guns.



> It's just the heavy guns on Acclamators brought up in the supposedly-cannon ICS are nonexistent in those screenshots.


The guns ISDs use are nonexistent on the model. What do you make of that?


----------



## Fang (May 15, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> I haven't seen it.



Not my problem if you ignored it, concession accepted.



> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPj33erpKRY[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> 1:05-1:23- they do not show a single image of the tactical display for the time between when the Phoenix is fired on and when the Phoenix fires.



1:03 directly shows the ships to be far closer than 300,000 kilometers, so Data is already wrong on the distance. And visual overrides dialogue.

Data: The warship is 300,000 kilometers from the Phoenix. It is opening fire, the Phoenix has taken a direct hit. The Phoenix is beginning evasive manuevers. *It has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship.*

Your claim is again refuted. 



> Ok.  Now, how can you say this is consistent with the movies while something like "The Wounded" is inconsistent for Trek?



Tactical display contradicts Data's statements. Trek ships in TNG and Deep Space Nine routinely fail at tagging ships from under a dozen kilometers in sublight and impulse speeds.

When you try and cherry pick one scene and misrepresent it, of course I'm not going to accept it. Especially while trying to espouse a convulted attempt at an association fallacy when we already have visual evidence of what Star Wars ships can do, and what Trek ships can't.



> Scotty did it with a rickety old shuttle.



:snorlax:



> Proof, please.



Star Destroyers chasing the Falcon away from Tatooine. 



> Just saying "no" doesn't make it go away, Fang, no matter how much you want it to.



It's a good thing I'm right. Red and Gold Squadrons covered over 400,000 kilometers from Yavin IV to the Death Star in well under five minutes. 

The Death Star itself could cover 200,000 kilometers to get outside of the gas giant Yavin to target the planet. That's over 1700gs just for a fucking giant battle station that's the slowest in the Imperial fleet.



> Video of these SDs, please, and I was speaking about capial ship speed, not fighter speed.



I've been talking about the fucking Star Destroyers. The Death Star is over 1700gs, the Star Destroyer during the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi showed the acceleration capabilities of Star Destroyers. 

The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s. 

It decelerated to near-zero velocity relative to the Rebel fleet, in roughly 2 seconds. This means that their decelerative capability (which is equal to or less than their forward accelerative capability) is at least 30 km/s². This means that a Star Destroyer has at least 30 times the acceleration of the Death Star, and 3 times the acceleration of a Federation Galaxy Class starship.



> "The Wounded" says otherwise.



Proven wrong already when Data is contradicted by the tactical screen and earlier in the episode of the Enterprise engaging in under a dozen kilometers without that 300,000 limit.



> EU not allowed.



I don't need EU for this.



> Actually, Acclamators may not have guns at all.



Films for one, TV series and ICS state otherwise.


----------



## Endless Mike (May 15, 2009)

Um, are we going with the "Star Destroyers are slow in sublight" idiocy again?

Should I remind you that in ANH they were overtaking the Millenium Falcon until the Falcon went to hyperspace?


----------



## Fang (May 15, 2009)

I already mentioned that scene and the fleet movements during RoTJ as well.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 15, 2009)

TWF said:


> Not my problem if you ignored it, concession accepted.



Not my problem if you refuse to copy & paste from what you already typed (like I did a couple times in this thread) to easily show me, concession accepted.



> 1:03 directly shows the ships to be far closer than 300,000 kilometers, so Data is already wrong on the distance. And visual overrides dialogue.
> 
> Data: The warship is 300,000 kilometers from the Phoenix. It is opening fire, the Phoenix has taken a direct hit. The Phoenix is beginning evasive manuevers. *It has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship.*
> 
> ...



The display doesn't say anything about distances, just grid numbers.  Wrong again.





> Trek ships in TNG and Deep Space Nine routinely fail at tagging ships from under a dozen kilometers in sublight and impulse speeds.



Too bad ISDs are far less maneuverable than those ships the Trek gunners miss.



> When you try and cherry pick one scene and misrepresent it, of course I'm not going to accept it. Especially while trying to espouse a convulted attempt at an association fallacy when we already have visual evidence of what Star Wars ships can do, and what Trek ships can't.



Visual evidence of SW ships... sorry, but going by visuals, Trek still beats SW at sublight.



> :snorlax:



Just what does this mean, anyway?  Is this some internet meme I've missed out on?



> Star Destroyers chasing the Falcon away from Tatooine.



Proof by means of video, not uncited text, please.



> It's a good thing I'm right. Red and Gold Squadrons covered over 400,000 kilometers from Yavin IV to the Death Star in well under five minutes.



Ok... not doubting starfighter speed here.



> The Death Star itself could cover 200,000 kilometers to get outside of the gas giant Yavin to target the planet. That's over 1700gs just for a fucking giant battle station that's the slowest in the Imperial fleet.



That took several minutes.  Trek ships cover distances of hundreds of thousands of kilometers in a few seconds.




> I've been talking about the fucking Star Destroyers. The Death Star is over 1700gs, the Star Destroyer during the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi showed the acceleration capabilities of Star Destroyers.
> 
> The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s.
> 
> It decelerated to near-zero velocity relative to the Rebel fleet, in roughly 2 seconds. This means that their decelerative capability (which is equal to or less than their forward accelerative capability) is at least 30 km/s². This means that a Star Destroyer has at least 30 times the acceleration of the Death Star, and 3 times the acceleration of a Federation Galaxy Class starship.



You'll need to provide video proof of this, but even so it doesn't outclass the Phoenix's speed feat.



> Proven wrong already when Data is contradicted by the tactical screen and earlier in the episode of the Enterprise engaging in under a dozen kilometers without that 300,000 limit.



Already refuted.  Being shown to engage at close range doesn't prove that the ships are limited to close range, as long as other examples exist that show them fighting at long range.  And they do exist.



> I don't need EU for this.



Ok then.




> Films for one, TV series and ICS state otherwise.



Acclamators are never shown firing, and the Clone Wars screenshots (which, unlike original trilogy physical models, Deathsaurer, are in full CGI and should have the detail of Venators in RotS and TCW, which shows the guns on them)
 show a distinct lack of guns in the places the ICS puts them.



Endless Mike said:


> Um, are we going with the "Star Destroyers are slow in sublight" idiocy again?
> 
> Should I remind you that in ANH they were overtaking the Millenium Falcon until the Falcon went to hyperspace?



I'm not necessarily saying that they are slow, just slow_er_ than Trek ships.  And about as maneuverable as modern oil tankers.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 15, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> (which, unlike original trilogy physical models, Deathsaurer, are in full CGI and should have the detail of Venators in RotS and TCW, which shows the guns on them)


Cop-out. If Lucas can waste time putting a CGI Yoda in episode I he can add guns to the Star Destroyers. Honestly, the idea that the Republic fought a war for an extended amount of time without an armed starfleet is ridiculous. I'll chalk it up to Lucas not making up his mind till too late since all subsequent sources have them listed as being there. 
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnPcyebjiPE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Tell me if you see the gun that took out the bow of the CIS ship at 2:33 cause I can't see it.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W5DVIz6gqs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fang (May 15, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> Not my problem if you refuse to copy & paste from what you already typed (like I did a couple times in this thread) to easily show me, concession accepted.



Your just going in circles denying the visual evidence that override and contradict Data's claims.



> The display doesn't say anything about distances, just grid numbers.  Wrong again.



Again explain why the Enterprise was never ever shown in the entire series firing at ranges anywhere near that, especially in the same fucking episode.





> Too bad ISDs are far less maneuverable than those ships the Trek gunners miss.



Worf missed three out of four shots at a near stationary Borg Cube at point-blank.

Try again.



> Visual evidence of SW ships... sorry, but going by visuals, Trek still beats SW at sublight.



Argument from Belief. Movie and novel shows & states hundreds of kilometers as point-blank, ECM and jamming affected the major ranged weapons of the destroyers. Novel and film has Executor itself engaging the Alliance fleet from thousands of kilometers out while they charged the Imperial fleets.

Then again there's the ICS statement of 10-light minutes for Venators and light-hours+ for Devestator/Avenger class Destroyers from TESB. Oh and the evidence shoved in Ezmajoidsjfoids whatever his name's face with the Trader Federation capital ships opening up thousands of kilometers away from Padme's starship in Episode I.



> Proof by means of video, not uncited text, please.



[YOUTUBE]htbo56R-Oqx4E[/YOUTUBE]

Falcon is faster than most starfighters, the Star Destroyers were gaining on it easily.



> That took several minutes.  Trek ships cover distances of hundreds of thousands of kilometers in a few seconds.



Never happened in any film or tv series.

Also the last TNG Technical book specifies that the Enterprise-D's maximum sublight acceleration is 1000g. 



> You'll need to provide video proof of this, but even so it doesn't outclass the Phoenix's speed feat.



I already have posted video evidence that you tried to use to prove you wrong. 

Assuming that there is no fucking reason why the tactical map isn't at proper scale, there is no remote indication that's anywhere near hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

And the entire battle was with torpedos, not phasers. The ship got within weapons ranged, fired, and the Phoenix went to Warp to again evade it.

Same wank Trekkies claim like lasers not penetrating the navigational shielding of the Enterprise in TNG. Character statements are falliable and subjective, Picard was wrong then and Data is contradicted by the tactical screen.



> Already refuted.



Physical proof of the Enterprise and other Federation starships in the same episode never fired from the ranges of hundreds of thousands kilometers. It's funny how you still haven't addressed that.

Again you are cherrypicking evidence for your argument. Once more Way of the Warrior episode from Deep Space Nine, naval fleets from either side during the Dominion Wars don't start firing until within visual range.



> Acclamators are never shown firing, and the Clone Wars screenshots (which, unlike original trilogy physical models, Deathsaurer, are in full CGI and should have the detail of Venators in RotS and TCW, which shows the guns on them)
> show a distinct lack of guns in the places the ICS puts them.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 15, 2009)

TWF said:


> Your just going in circles denying the visual evidence that override and contradict Data's claims.



I'm not talking about visual evidence, here.  I'm talking about how I accused you of an affirming the consequent fallacy and you just said "Fallacy fallacy" without bothering to actually refute my argument





> Again explain why the Enterprise was never ever shown in the entire series firing at ranges anywhere near that, especially in the same fucking episode.



Ships are usually close.  Again, the fact that ships are usually seen to fire does not prove they are limited to it.  Are you willing to admit that the SW engagement ranges in RotJ and RotS proves they are limited to that?



> Worf missed three out of four shots at a near stationary Borg Cube at point-blank.
> 
> Try again.



When was this?



> Argument from Belief. Movie and novel shows & states hundreds of kilometers as point-blank, ECM and jamming affected the major ranged weapons of the destroyers. Novel and film has Executor itself engaging the Alliance fleet from thousands of kilometers out while they charged the Imperial fleets.
> 
> Then again there's the ICS statement of 10-light minutes for Venators and light-hours+ for Devestator/Avenger class Destroyers from TESB. Oh and the evidence shoved in Ezmajoidsjfoids whatever his name's face with the Trader Federation capital ships opening up thousands of kilometers away from Padme's starship in Episode I.



Get your arguments straight.  I was talking about the ship's sublight speed, not weapons ranges.  I acknowledge that SW weapons ranges are superior.





> [YOUTUBE]htbo56R-Oqx4E[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Falcon is faster than most starfighters, the Star Destroyers were gaining on it easily.



That's why the Falcon lost the ISDs, right?





> Never happened in any film or tv series.
> 
> Also the last TNG Technical book specifies that the Enterprise-D's maximum sublight acceleration is 1000g.



See "The Wounded", again.

The TNG Technical Manual also states torpedo ranges to be 3.5 million kilometers.



> I already have posted video evidence that you tried to use to prove you wrong.



Nope.



> Assuming that there is no fucking reason why the tactical map isn't at proper scale, there is no remote indication that's anywhere near hundreds of thousands of kilometers.



If it was at proper scale, the ships would be imperceptibly small on the display.  Data's statement is enough.



> And the entire battle was with torpedos, not phasers. The ship got within weapons ranged, fired, and the Phoenix went to Warp to again evade it.



It's never said that the Phoenix went to warp.



> Same wank Trekkies claim like lasers not penetrating the navigational shielding of the Enterprise in TNG. Character statements are falliable and subjective, Picard was wrong then and Data is contradicted by the tactical screen.



The lasers thing is just because lasers in the STverse are far, far, _far_ inferior to SW lasers, or modern weaponry in the STverse, and the Enterprise crew knew it.  No objective power scale was given.

In this case, Data gave a specific number, and you can't just say "No, he's wrong".  You're not in charge of ST canon (or SW, for that matter).  And the tactical screen was not contradictory.



> Physical proof of the Enterprise and other Federation starships in the same episode never fired from the ranges of hundreds of thousands kilometers. It's funny how you still haven't addressed that.



I have addressed it.  It proves nothing.  Most ST crews prefer to engage at close ranges, fine.  That doesn't prove they have to.



> Again you are cherrypicking evidence for your argument. Once more Way of the Warrior episode from Deep Space Nine, naval fleets from either side during the Dominion Wars don't start firing until within visual range.



See above.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 15, 2009)

Special instance on E-D's speed.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDsYBczbz1w[/YOUTUBE]

0:45:  Data states that the Dyson's Sphere is 200,000,000 million kilometers in diameter.

37:40:  Data states that it will take 1 minute 40 seconds to reach the exit of the sphere from the star at its center (at 60% impulse power).

200,000,000 divided by two, then by 100 seconds is 1,000,000.  Adjusting for the percentage, the speed of the Enterprise at 100% impulse is about 1,666,666 km/s.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 15, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> That's why the Falcon lost the ISDs, right?


Because it altered course. It isn't faster, it's more maneuverable.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnyWNoFb58[/YOUTUBE]

Or alternatively it just jumped to hyperspace.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwevTdKL-tk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Endless Mike (May 15, 2009)

Not to mention it can fit between the asteroids while the ISDs can't

They have to blast them


----------



## Fang (May 15, 2009)

Manwë Súlimo said:


> I'm not talking about visual evidence, here.  I'm talking about how I accused you of an affirming the consequent fallacy and you just said "Fallacy fallacy" without bothering to actually refute my argument







> Ships are usually close.  Again, the fact that ships are usually seen to fire does not prove they are limited to it.  Are you willing to admit that the SW engagement ranges in RotJ and RotS proves they are limited to that?



You are ignorning evidence from the film novelizations and particularly the cases with Episode I and V.  I don't have a crux here in my argument, your the one that does.



> When was this?



Star Trek - The Next Generation: Q Who. Picard orders Worf to target and destroy the tractor beams on a Borg Cube, this is within a few kilometers of a stationary Cube. He misses the first three fucking shots before the fourth hits the tractor emitter.



> Get your arguments straight.  I was talking about the ship's sublight speed, not weapons ranges.  I acknowledge that SW weapons ranges are superior.



Which is dimissive of your claims within my argument when Star Trek capital ships routinely miss at close range (dozens of kilometers and less) while traveling at under lightspeed. 

Hell Voyager's episode Equinox puts the nail in the coffin that certifies that their ranges are well below 30,000 kilometers. When the Equinox entered the atmosphere of planet, the Voyager had to follow it to be within range to fire on it.



> That's why the Falcon lost the ISDs, right?



Falcon had to clear Tatooine's gravity to jump to lightspeed, it had a headstart on the two ISDs.

Nice attempt at trying to dismiss it but your obviously conceeding you were wrong here.



> See "The Wounded", again.



Already explained.



> The TNG Technical Manual also states torpedo ranges to be 3.5 million kilometers.



Yet never displayed, most of it is either hyperbole or baseless technobable without any physical support in the series.



> Nope.



Too bad for you then.



> If it was at proper scale, the ships would be imperceptibly small on the display.  Data's statement is enough.



As Data is speaking, the viewscreen shows a two-dimensional display of the battle. 

If this display is oriented to provide the most useful view of the battle (placing all three of the vessels being tracked in the same plane), then it shows the relative weapon ranges of the ships and the distance between the them. 

The display casts of obvious suspecion on Data's description of the battle, since the viewscreen shows that the Phoenix is still well within weapons range of the Cardassian ship, which actually has greater range than the Phoenix if the display is accurate. 

Again the battle between the Trager and the Enterprise proves my point from earlier in the same episode.



> It's never said that the Phoenix went to warp.



All three were traveling at Warp speeds, that's why the 300,000 kilometers was nothing for them.



> The lasers thing is just because lasers in the STverse are far, far, _far_ inferior to SW lasers, or modern weaponry in the STverse, and the Enterprise crew knew it.  No objective power scale was given.



Not my point.



> In this case, Data gave a specific number, and you can't just say "No, he's wrong".  You're not in charge of ST canon (or SW, for that matter).  And the tactical screen was not contradictory.





> I have addressed it.  It proves nothing.  Most ST crews prefer to engage at close ranges, fine.  That doesn't prove they have to.



Not acceptable or valid rebuttal. Again in TNG episode: Yesterday's Enterprise, while in a state of war with the Klingon Empire, the Enterprise had to wait until three Birds of Prey warships decloak a few kilometers to open fire when they were in "range".

Again in Deep Space Nine, episode Call to Arms, the top of the line military supply and support base's sensors were having trouble finding and ranging targets only a few kilometers to bare bone hundreds of meters.

Cardassian and Dominion fleet were well within visual range of the space station itself. And had to close range before firing to within spitting distance (few kilometers to dozen at tops at most), and there is no reason why they would've fired at that range to avoid such damage and losses unless they could at further.

This is consistant throughout the series.

Another episode from TNG, Conundrum, Worf states that the main phaser banks have a range of 300,000 kilometers yet Mr. Riker states that they still had to wait several more seconds to be in range of the Lysian command center, which was stationary.

Further dismissing Data's claims again.



> See above.



Visuals say otherwise when frequent multiple capital ship engagements are well within visual ranges or dozens of kilometers at tops.



> Proof, please.





			
				A New Hope p.181 said:
			
		

> Also, their field generators will probably create a lot of distortion, especially in and around the trench. I figure that maneuverability in that sector will be less than point three." This produced more murmurs and a few groans from the assembly.[sic Dondonna]



Jamming distorts space-time.


----------



## Endless Mike (May 15, 2009)

The technical manuals are non-canon.

I think the way it works is that they can hit something at 300,000 km if it's an ideal situation: It's large enough, it's stationary with respect to the ship, and there's no interference blocking targeting.

Against a moving target the range is much less.


----------



## Commander Shepard (May 16, 2009)

TWF said:


>



A facepalm doesn't count as an rebuttal either, Fang.



> You are ignorning evidence from the film novelizations and particularly the cases with Episode I and V.  I don't have a crux here in my argument, your the one that does.



And you are ignoring evidence from "The Wounded" and other episodes.  At least my evidence is on screen; yours isn't.



> Star Trek - The Next Generation: Q Who. Picard orders Worf to target and destroy the tractor beams on a Borg Cube, this is within a few kilometers of a stationary Cube. He misses the first three fucking shots before the fourth hits the tractor emitter.



Video, please.  Did he miss the cube entirely, or just the emitter?



> Hell Voyager's episode Equinox puts the nail in the coffin that certifies that their ranges are well below 30,000 kilometers. When the Equinox entered the atmosphere of planet, the Voyager had to follow it to be within range to fire on it.



Perhaps atmospheres have negative effects on accuracy and it's best to pursue.  It still doesn't prove a limit.



> Falcon had to clear Tatooine's gravity to jump to lightspeed, it had a headstart on the two ISDs.
> 
> Nice attempt at trying to dismiss it but your obviously conceeding you were wrong here.



Ok, Deathsaurer's post persuaded me that ISD speed matches the Falcon.  They still have sucktastic maneuverability.



> Yet never displayed, most of it is either hyperbole or baseless technobable without any physical support in the series.



Well, if you're going to take one detail from the Technical Manual, you can't pick and choose arbitrarily-you have to take them all.


Too bad for you then.





> As Data is speaking, the viewscreen shows a two-dimensional display of the battle.
> 
> If this display is oriented to provide the most useful view of the battle (placing all three of the vessels being tracked in the same plane), then it shows the relative weapon ranges of the ships and the distance between the them.



Ok.



> The display casts of obvious suspecion on Data's description of the battle, since the viewscreen shows that the Phoenix is still well within weapons range of the Cardassian ship, which actually has greater range than the Phoenix if the display is accurate.



As I said, no image is actually shown of the viewscreen when Data says the Phoenix to be out of the Cardassian ship's weapon range.



> Again the battle between the Trager and the Enterprise proves my point from earlier in the same episode.



Argument ad nauseam.  This still proves no limit.



> All three were traveling at Warp speeds, that's why the 300,000 kilometers was nothing for them.



I never hear the words "warp" uttered by Data or anyone.  Care to point out where it was?



> Not acceptable or valid rebuttal. Again in TNG episode: Yesterday's Enterprise, while in a state of war with the Klingon Empire, the Enterprise had to wait until three Birds of Prey warships decloak a few kilometers to open fire when they were in "range".



Or, as you said, it just had to wait until the warbirds decloaked.  You know, because ST ships can't lock on to cloaked vessels.



> Again in Deep Space Nine, episode Call to Arms, the top of the line military supply and support base's sensors were having trouble finding and ranging targets only a few kilometers to bare bone hundreds of meters.
> 
> Cardassian and Dominion fleet were well within visual range of the space station itself. And had to close range before firing to within spitting distance (few kilometers to dozen at tops at most), and there is no reason why they would've fired at that range to avoid such damage and losses unless they could at further.



Video, please.



> This is consistant throughout the series.



"The Wounded" disagrees.



> Another episode from TNG, Conundrum, Worf states that the main phaser banks have a range of 300,000 kilometers yet Mr. Riker states that they still had to wait several more seconds to be in range of the Lysian command center, which was stationary.



You contradict yourself.



> Jamming distorts space-time.



Ok... on fighter-level scale.  Coming from the Death Star.  Protecting its only weakness.  Somethings tells me this isn't commonplace, nor something that would majorly effect capital ships. 



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Because it altered course. It isn't faster, it's more maneuverable.
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnyWNoFb58[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Or alternatively it just jumped to hyperspace.
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwevTdKL-tk[/YOUTUBE]



I concede to ISD speed being as fast as the Falcon.



Endless Mike said:


> The technical manuals are non-canon.
> 
> I think the way it works is that they can hit something at 300,000 km if it's an ideal situation: It's large enough, it's stationary with respect to the ship, and there's no interference blocking targeting.
> 
> Against a moving target the range is much less.



Good thing ISDs are as maneuverable as crap, then.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (May 16, 2009)

Manw? S?limo said:


> Video, please.  Did he miss the cube entirely, or just the emitter?


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQVrix7DUFs[/YOUTUBE]
He said he was locked onto it in part 3 and missed once.



> Video, please.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCx1NegEF0A[/YOUTUBE]



> I concede to ISD speed being as fast as the Falcon.


Faster actually, they were said to be gaining on it at Tatooine.


----------

