# Enterprise-D Vs Space Battleship Yamato



## willyvereb (Jan 19, 2015)

The space battleship Yamato left the docks once again to oppose yet another evil alien threat. They're called the United Federation of Planets and they're plotting to destroy humanity. They detonated a distant neutron star and had their flagship the USS Enterprise-D change the course of the lead fragment towards Earth! Predicted time to hit is in about 32 billion years! They don't have much time! The Yamato is heading out to meet the Enterprise-D and restore peace once again!















"_Stardate 45482, after saving the colony at Moab 4 our sensors picked up an unknown vessel within the Rainbow Star Region. Upon visual confirmation the vessel appeared to have eerie resemblance to naval vessels from the Earth's distant past. We attempted contact but our subspace communications were jammed by the region's unique properties. Apparently, the unknown ship perceived us as enemies and opened fire. It seems we have no choice but to fight._"



*Spoiler*: _Conditions_ 




So yeah, the Enterprise-D from Star Trek fights the eponymous ship from the Space Battleship Yamato series.
Both the Enterprise-D and the Yamato has all its upgrades they received during the series.
Starting distance is either the Enterprise-D or the Yamato's weapon range, whichever has shorter.
BTW, you can blame KaiserWombat for inspiring me to this.


Two legendary ships, only one winner!
Ladies and Gentlemen, please take your bets!


----------



## KaiserWombat (Jan 19, 2015)

Hey now, you're the one who brought up SBY in the first place in that blog entry, no need to cite me as the influence!

Or is this simply your long-expected confession that I function as your muse? Do not worry, I'll take this admission as complimentary, vereb 

---

If we are following your calc route of providing the Enterprise-D with yottaton-class energy output in 'casual' confrontations, combined with massively superior travel speeds, then I honestly cannot see the Yamato surviving this battle in any shape: the Wave Motion Cannon is the sole armament that even approaches that level of firepower necessary to dent the Enterprise's energy shielding at such a high level of output, and the WMC is far from a spammable device even at its latest update status (cooldown timer of at least 60 seconds IIRC, probably closer to 10 minutes), whereas (as I interpreted from your entry) the yottaton figure can fully apply to the casual phaser fire of the Starfleet vessel.


----------



## Gibbs (Jan 19, 2015)

Shouldn't 4 photon torpedoes end this?


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 19, 2015)

KaiserWombat said:


> If we are following your calc route of providing the Enterprise-D with yottaton-class energy output in 'casual' confrontations, combined with massively superior travel speeds, then I honestly cannot see the Yamato surviving this battle in any shape: the Wave Motion Cannon is the sole armament that even approaches that level of firepower necessary to dent the Enterprise's energy shielding at such a high level of output, and the WMC is far from a spammable device even at its latest update status (cooldown timer of at least 60 seconds IIRC, probably closer to 10 minutes), whereas (as I interpreted from your entry) the yottaton figure can fully apply to the casual phaser fire of the Starfleet vessel.


Yes, 125 yottatons is for the ship's "casual" output and they can output even more if neccessary as the actual calc results showed.
On the other hand I'm sure you can work out some correlation for the standard ship weapons too.
If the WMC can shoot in every minute then perhaps it means the ship generates 1/60th of this energy every second. Meaning perhaps its standard weapons are sharing some of that output.
There are others, kinda more powerscalingish methods but let's try this at first.

Second, I can't see why would be the Enterprise-D faster than the Yamato.
I think you confuse it with the Enterprise from TOS which has an utterly ridiculous speed feat.
TNG era starships can travel with few thousands to few dozen millions of times c at maximum warp. Neither of these should be close to even Season 1 Yamato.
As for combat speed that's up for debate.
The very least both vessels have FTL combat.


----------



## MusubiKazesaru (Jan 19, 2015)

The Yamato is in over its head.


----------



## Valvatorez (Jan 20, 2015)

Keep in mind that TOS and TNG have different warp scales. As Warp 11 in TOS is a little under warp 9 for a mid to late 24th century starship. Warp 10 was revised to be infinite velocity.
The Kelvans modifying the TOS Enterprise to reach 8300 times speed of light can be attributed to them being that much more advanced.

I don't want to open up my old TNG technical manual confirm Memory Alpha's information because it might fall apart if I look through it. PDF files are easy to get online though.


----------



## Amae (Jan 20, 2015)

Do feats from Yamato's remake count, or are they ultimately irrelevant?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 20, 2015)

Yamato should have trouble in STL combat, especially with the maneuverability of the Big E, Range should be about even...granted I haven't watched an episode of Yamato since about 2008 so my mind might be a little foggy but yeah.

The Yamato has a couple problems in that its firing arc is extremely limited despite having way more guns than the Big E...its main weapon, the one that could easily rip into the E is limited again in how it can direct its fire in a way that cripples its effectiveness.

FTL isn't gonna matter much as neither Okita nor Picard are going to chance an ftl chase when they know little about the enemy.  These men are both seasoned combat veterans and keep their more aggressive emotions in check, neither one is going to do anything rash on the off set

Picard has his starship shunpo move but that kinda requires risking being in the Yamato's direct line of fire for WMG..

Willy this is a Next Gen GSC right? Not a Dominion war refit hull?

edit- the Ahb might be a better match for the ST big four/five. Especially if you go with the novels


----------



## Gibbs (Jan 20, 2015)

In the TNG episode where RIker is captaining the Melbourne vs Picard  (Episode that had Data playing against Korami in Stratagema). Riker had Worf create holograms of Klingon (or Romulan?) ships as a distraction so they could get hits in.

I'm not sure how long these distractions will suffice, but this is a fantastic diversionary tactic.

Edit: Here's the episode:


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 20, 2015)

Amae said:


> Do feats from Yamato's remake count, *or are they ultimately irrelevant?*


Well, guess how many blogs did KaiserWombat wrote about the reboot movie feats?
That's your answer.

To  be fair the Wave Motion Barrier is neat and that's something the  original Yamato doesn't have. But I'm not sure on its durability.
I'd wager that the Yamato from the original series can tank more with its bare hull.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Yamato should have trouble in STL combat, especially with the maneuverability of the Big E, Range should be about even...granted I haven't watched an episode of Yamato since about 2008 so my mind might be a little foggy but yeah.


Actually neither ships are STL here even without their interstellar travel.
The Yamato and especially its fighters are FTL to the hundreds of c or so.
Enterprise-D also has some low FTL impulse feats and can actually perform tight maneuvers while in Warp so I wouldn't count that out, either.



> The Yamato has a couple problems in that its firing arc is extremely limited despite having way more guns than the Big E...its main weapon, the one that could easily rip into the E is limited again in how it can direct its fire in a way that cripples its effectiveness.


 Its slow rate of fire limits the Wave Motion Gun more than anything else.
Although yeah, Enterprise has somewhat better firing arc even if we compare their standard weapons.



> Picard has his starship shunpo move but that kinda requires risking being in the Yamato's direct line of fire for WMG..


Why?
He can warp anywhere else, not just to the front.
Anyways, the Picard Maneuver is actually impossible against any ship with FTL sensors.
Ironically that surely includes other starships if they don't suffer from PIS which is so common.
Same for the Yamato, kind of.


> Willy this is a Next Gen GSC right? Not a Dominion war refit hull?


This is the Enterprise-D.
That should be my answer.
It's obvious that we are talking about a Galaxy-class Starship prior to the Dominion War.



> edit- the* Ahb* might be a better match for the ST big four/five. Especially if you go with the novels


Who?
Or what?
I really don't get you here.



The Phoenix King said:


> In the TNG episode where RIker is  captaining the Melbourne vs Picard  (Episode that had Data playing  against Korami in Stratagema). Riker had Worf create holograms of  Klingon (or Romulan?) ships as a distraction so they could get hits in.
> 
> I'm not sure how long these distractions will suffice, but this is a fantastic diversionary tactic.
> 
> Edit: Here's the episode:


It's funny how you're correct and wrong at the same time.
Your link is correct, the events you describe are roughly correct but you got the names wrong.
Riker commanded the USS Hathaway during that episode and he fooled the Ferengi sensors to detect Federation ships, not Klingon.
Seriously, if you just read the link you supplied this wouldn't have happened.

Anyways, it wasn't more than just messing with the enemy's sensors.
I think only the Voyager made "fake ships" as distraction.
Still, electronic warfare and overall the scientific bullshit would be in the Enterprise's favor, indeed.
I might be forgetful but SBY is far more straightforward than to have much showings for this.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 20, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> Actually neither ships are STL here even without their interstellar travel.
> The Yamato and especially its fighters are FTL to the hundreds of c or so.
> Enterprise-D also has some low FTL impulse feats and can actually perform tight maneuvers while in Warp so I wouldn't count that out, either]



When I say STL I mean their out of ftl travel mode combat. The big E can move like their fighters can whereas the Yamato..not so much.



willyvereb said:


> ] Its slow rate of fire limits the Wave Motion Gun more than anything else.



You think;? it's bristling with guns and missiles but they all fire in ways that the E can easily avoid, meaning its going to have to rely heavily on the WMC


willyvereb said:


> Although yeah, Enterprise has somewhat better firing arc even if we compare their standard weapons.



agreed.




willyvereb said:


> Why?
> He can warp anywhere else, not just to the front.



Mostly because for whatever reason, that move is usually done at the front?

Granted nothings stopping Picard from warp strafing the Yamato's engines or something. 


willyvereb said:


> Anyways, the Picard Maneuver is actually impossible against any ship with FTL sensors.
> Ironically that surely includes other starships if they don't suffer from PIS which is so common.
> Same for the Yamato, kind of.



Humans still man the consoles though, which was why Data was the only one to effectively defend against it,

Okita's not so lucky. 


willyvereb said:


> This is the Enterprise-D.
> That should be my answer.
> It's obvious that we are talking about a Galaxy-class Starship prior to the Dominion War.



Wanting to preempt anyone else using Dominion war era feats in this thread.


willyvereb said:


> Who?
> Or what?
> I really don't get you here.


----------



## Gibbs (Jan 20, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> It's funny how you're correct and wrong at the same time.
> Your link is correct, the events you describe are roughly correct but you got the names wrong.
> Riker commanded the USS Hathaway during that episode and he fooled the Ferengi sensors to detect Federation ships, not Klingon.
> Seriously, if you just read the link you supplied this wouldn't have happened.
> ...



   Actually, I was correct on all but the name of the ship. My memory isn't that far off.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 20, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> When I say STL I mean their out of ftl travel mode combat. The big E can move like their fighters can whereas the Yamato..not so much.


That's pretty damn subjective.
You use a classic style over substance argument here.
It doesn'tmatter how "nimble" a ship appears to be. What matters are its feats.
If anything without interstellar drives the Yamato is actually faster.



> You think;? it's bristling with guns and missiles but they all fire in ways that the E can easily avoid, meaning its going to have to rely heavily on the WMC


????
This makes no sense whatsoever.
If the Enterprise can easily avoid all the other weapons then how is it going to nail the starship with its most problematic weapon of it all?
Besides I smell subjective argument here, as well.
Said guns and missiles can fire much faster than 500c fighters flying around.



> Mostly because for whatever reason, that move is usually done at the front?


Your point being?
Besides it's more like warping to point-blank range to the side.
It just happened to be still kinda at the front.
Either way even if it warps to the same place that's actually outside of the WMG's firing arc.
Just a minor note because the Picard Maneuver would be useless, most likely.



> Humans still man the consoles though, which was why Data was the only one to effectively defend against it,
> 
> Okita's not so lucky.


...You do know that cosmo fighters are also piloted, right?
Performing various maneuvers at hundreds of times faster than light.
Having human pilot is rarely a liability in space operas.
It simply doesn't matter.
Neither for Star Trek.
Radiation can penetrate the shields and head straight for the bridge at the speed of light yet in terms of the show's subjective time about a dozen seconds pass (and the crew does various things).
Or in case of TOS you could have the crew staring at a Warp 15 (quadrillions of times the speed of light) projectile for two whole minutes.

So yeah, having computerized reactions has no importance at all here.

Ah, you meant them.
Well, maybe for next time.


----------



## Amae (Jan 20, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> Well, guess how many blogs did KaiserWombat wrote about the reboot movie feats?
> That's your answer.


No idea, especially considering how it's impossible to see pictures from imageshack now and I assumed they were based on the old series (I'm not really going to download them to compare visuals between them). No differences between the OVA and films?

I'll get back to you on the Wave Motion Barrier, possibly.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 20, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> ...You do know that cosmo fighters are also piloted, right?
> Performing various maneuvers at hundreds of times faster than light.
> Having human pilot is rarely a liability in space operas.
> It simply doesn't matter.
> ...



Hmmm... on that note, are those sort of Reflexes thrown out as legitimate feats for characters or not? I recall reading that chrono trigger got it's reaction speed out of piloting a ship, but... seems a bit of a case of a general fiction inconsistency.

On-topic: Only know the enterprise D as I've never watched Yamato(though from what I'm reading here that might be a sin, so perhaps I should go watch that rather than endure a repeat of when I told people I hadn't watched Wayne's world) 

but it sounds like the Enterprise D has a massive versatility advantage and about equivalent stats, so tentatively giving it to them. The amount of bullshit that ship pulled off in TNG was amazing.


----------



## Blue (Jan 20, 2015)

Yottawot? Enterprise-D's power output is stated to be 12.75 exawatts. That's 12.75 hundredths of a yottawatt. Don't know where you're getting this yottawatt shit from. 

Wait, yotta*ton*?

L
O
L

Photon torpedo is 64 megatons

Anyway it still vaporizes Yamato


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 20, 2015)

Handsome Jack said:


> Yottawot? Enterprise-D's power output is stated to be 12.75 exawatts. That's 12.75 hundredths of a yottawatt. Don't know where you're getting this yottawatt shit from.
> 
> Wait, yotta*ton*?
> 
> ...



ignoring most of the new shit that Willy found, I see. there's a lot of feats that got found recently that put them far above that.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> That's pretty damn subjective.
> You use a classic style over substance argument here.
> It doesn'tmatter how "nimble" a ship appears to be. What matters are its feats.
> If anything without interstellar drives the Yamato is actually faster.



 

_What?!_




willyvereb said:


> T]????
> This makes no sense whatsoever.



_..what?!_

These ships are going to be moving around, spinning, turning, avoiding fire, and returning fire, engaging each other with counter measures and the like...one opponent can only broad side, partially in circle.

the other is not at all limited by that...so in an engagement where there will be maneuvering, dancing and returning fire, the ship that can zip into an area the other can't address and dump a few torpedoes into its engines, or else target its back..hit its front. 

you're thinking math on a page..or else have gone so far off the deep end you're ignoring the human element..


I'm talking "Tactics both commanders are likely going to employ to win" 



willyvereb said:


> If the Enterprise can easily avoid all the other weapons then how is *it going to nail the starship with its most problematic weapon of it all?*



I don't think you're reading my posts...since I've been saying "best bet is to use the WMC because its a sure fire way to put the ship down" not that it could do so easily, or hit it easily.





willyvereb said:


> Besides I smell subjective argument here, as well.



...



willyvereb said:


> T
> Said guns and missiles can fire much faster than 500c fighters flying around.



But they are limited in how they fire, verses an enemy that is not and has agility feats and maneuverability feats the Yamato never showed. 



willyvereb said:


> Your point being?



That it seems to be the "safest" or "most effective" way to do it. 



willyvereb said:


> Either way even if it warps to the same place that's actually outside of the WMG's firing arc.
> Just a minor note because the Picard Maneuver would be useless, most likely.



Picard may opt to warp strafe the Yamato.

if Archer can do it 



willyvereb said:


> T]...You do know that cosmo fighters are also piloted, right?
> Performing various maneuvers at hundreds of times faster than light.
> Having human pilot is rarely a liability in space operas.
> It simply doesn't matter.
> Neither for Star Trek.


both sides have had human navigators in ftl maneuvers

the Picard strike is still effective though




willyvereb said:


> T
> Ah, you meant them.
> Well, maybe for next time.



As long as its more the primary canon...



Handsome Jack said:


> Yottawot? Enterprise-D's power output is stated to be 12.75 exawatts. That's 12.75 hundredths of a yottawatt. Don't know where you're getting this yottawatt shit from.
> 
> Wait, yotta*ton*?
> 
> ...



What we actually see on screen in Trek is often several dozen times what certain sites have been claiming for years. And what the tech manuals tend to say.

Granted I've always been in a more conservative camp then Willy.


----------



## Blue (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> What we actually see on screen in Trek is often several dozen times what certain sites have been claiming for years. And what the tech manuals tend to say.
> 
> Granted I've always been in a more conservative camp then Willy.



It's stated on-screen to be 12 exawatts, some place in the episode about the Q who thinks she's human. And that's consistent with the vast majority of feats.

Aren't outliers discarded?


----------



## Blue (Jan 21, 2015)

For comparison - I just did this math myself, based on  of the Death Star's power - that feat puts the Enterprise's *tractor beam* at 62,000 times the power of the Death Star laser shit that toasted Alderbaran or whatever that planet was.*

Like, what?

I mean I'd laugh if the Enterprise oneshot the Death Star and most of the rest of the SW universe with a tractor beam, but that doesn't seem sensical.

*2.3 Zettatons vs. 125 Yottatons


----------



## ChaosTheory123 (Jan 21, 2015)

Blue said:


> For comparison - I just did this math myself, based on  of the Death Star's power - that feat puts the Enterprise's *tractor beam* at 62,000 times the power of the Death Star laser shit that toasted Alderbaran or whatever that planet was.*
> 
> Like, what?
> 
> ...



Ah....

Deathstar is estimated to be roughly 1E38 joules dude

Or did you miss the near relativistic expansion of most of the planetary mass?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

Blue said:


> It's stated on-screen to be 12 exawatts, some place in the episode about the Q who thinks she's human. And that's consistent with the vast majority of feats.
> 
> Aren't outliers discarded?



They're not outliers though- even in the era of ENT you had primitive shitty ass phasers leveling mountains and some of their higher end weaponry approaching triple digit megatons

by the time of TOS a connie could frag a planet in a day or so, a gram of anti matter from their reactors could bust up an area the size of the US

by the Next Gen you had them doing things an older Klingon ship wiping out pretty much everything down to the last microbe on a planets surface. Willy cites the backwash from the surface of the sun fucking up Klingon ships and this is supported by the E being chased and fire on by a Borg ship into a star...or by the Dominion giving chase to the Rotaran onto a stars surface and them weaponizing solar flairs..

Or how the e could have blown a moon to hell even though it was comprised of material noted as being extra dense and tough. Or them using their deflector dish to suck all the pollution out of a planets atmosphere and needing to be precise as fuck or else rip the planets atmosphere off

disposable Dominion ships crashing onto a planets surface at their STL velocity which are absurdly fast and being more or less intact..and the like.

What I'm not sure on is his high end figures...but possessing fire power in the multi GT level to possibly higher?

This is supported..by "feats' contradicted by statements that are below feats any way.



Blue said:


> For comparison - I just did this math myself, based on  of the Death Star's power - that feat puts the Enterprise's *tractor beam* at 62,000 times the power of the Death Star laser shit that toasted Alderbaran or whatever that planet was.*
> 
> Like, what?
> 
> ...



like I said I've no idea how Willy got the figures he got..and he's become so numbers obsessed he's ignoring a lot of stuff so you will have to debate that with him, I don't know what he did to come to those conclusions and I'd need to sift through his blog..to understand.

But he isn't wrong at all to say that Trek has been enormously underrated for years, and that its own fans are partially responsible for that. And his figures while they seem high as fuck to me..are supported even if vaguely by the consistent high end showings of what? Five decades of canon?

so..yeah


ChaosTheory123 said:


> Ah....
> 
> Deathstar is estimated to be roughly 1E38 joules dude
> 
> Or did you miss the near relativistic expansion of most of the planetary mass?



The funny part is that the big E probably could blow a Deathstar that had none of its armor or shielding on it..to pieces. They're perfectly able to fuck up objects that large providing they aren't fully functional planetary siege weaponry  


Obviously a fully armored, or even partially armored one with its external skin intact and even the most rudimentary of defenses is not something a single Trek ship has a snowballs chance in hell of one shotting


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 21, 2015)

@Blue: Basically, you don't like it so it didn't happen?
Enterprise-D semi-regularly does insane shit, especially in the fifth season of TNG
And we can't talk about consistency whatsoever.
Star Trek nerfs its technology every time it'd solve the plot too easily.
You can argue that they "boost" their tech whenever a plot couldn't be  solved otherwise but that's a slippery slope because you can very much say the same for every other piece of fiction.
Besides, outlier as a term lost most of its meaning during the last few years.
We always used the "positive feedback" style of debating where we apply the best feat a fiction, weapon, character or whatever has.
And often a single feat or calc supports the standing of an entire verse.
Also it really doesn't matter much for a setting where the effectiveness and power of the technology varies by episode.
Such as Star Trek.
For the record if it's convenient Replicators can take days to create a simple containment chamber when they can recreate a phase generator with completely unknown technology under far less time and far less cost in energy.
Vulcans and Romulans could be suddenly unrelated to each other and the injured Romulan would need fuckin Worf's blood.
Transporters can effectively cure anything yet you have medics using more conventional methods because that creates more drama.
Hand phasers are fuckin' weapons of mass destruction and that's why the authors directly admitted that they nerf them at every occasion they get otherwise firefights would cease to exist.
Shall I list more?
Because the list is practically endless.
Consistency with their technology is the least of Star Trek's worries.
We currently have the best starship feat well in the yottaton range.
You may not like this but a feat is still a feat.
And there are dozens of other feats ridiculously beyond 12 EW of power.


----------



## ChaosTheory123 (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> The funny part is that the big E probably could blow a Deathstar that had none of its armor or shielding on it..to pieces. They're perfectly able to fuck up objects that large providing they aren't fully functional planetary siege weaponry
> 
> 
> Obviously a fully armored, or even partially armored one with its external skin intact and even the most rudimentary of defenses is not something a single Trek ship has a snowballs chance in hell of one shotting



Probably, but I wasn't commenting here to dispute that

More so questioning why Blue was linking an article that only seemed to be giving an energy value for the destruction of earth/alderaan that'd require tens of minutes to expand to twice its size upon detonation is all


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

I could be in waaaaaay over my head here, but most of the times I've seen both TOS and TNG Federation starships, they appear to be life-wiper level DC, moon-level DC for TNG tops. Nothing on the level of a planet-buster, though. I have yet to see that.

I haven't done any calculations, so I wouldn't know, but I don't rely on calculations too much, unless the creators of the show have demonstrated that they have done some themselves. Gotta remember that these creators may not have been thinking with mathematical precision whilst writing up destructive feats.


----------



## ChaosTheory123 (Jan 21, 2015)

You're not around ever, if not much at all Yupi

So I don't blame you for your mentality

Just remember for future reference that the OBD essentially treats "god" as dead

Assuming they have an intent further than making money is a crapshoot without them telling us, which for our niche hobby, doesn't happen often if ever


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

Cheers Chaos! ^_^ I'll be in every now and then. For better, this time around, though. Older and wiser, like us all.

I understand how important calculations are. I've seen a lot of yours with YYH and HxH, in fact. However, I also think that calculations should be used to support the intent of the author, and this doesn't always happen.

What do you think of the overall destructive capacity of Federation ships, TNG era? Are these calculations being mentioned in line with what we have seen in the Star Trek universe?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

out of curiosity Yupi,. were you Blor over on CBR? Because his old YYH arguments were almost word for word yours..

edit- the questions was directed at Chaos but I'm probably the only guy on the forum that watches TNG and Ds9 over at least once a year.

The whole "blow the fuck out of a moon" is supported by by their feats and the like..beyond that its supported by a lot of their hax but its gets more nebulous

you're still talking pretty high end fire power though


----------



## Blue (Jan 21, 2015)

ChaosTheory123 said:


> Ah....
> 
> Deathstar is estimated to be roughly 1E38 joules dude
> 
> Or did you miss the near relativistic expansion of most of the planetary mass?


I simply don't care enough to do the calculations for planet destruction myself or worry about whose calculations are correct.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> They're not outliers though- even in the era of ENT you had primitive shitty ass phasers leveling mountains and some of their higher end weaponry approaching triple digit megatons


Bro you're not even in the same universe as the numbers we're talking about here thinking about that mountain the NX-01 blew up.

Triple digit megatons? Is nothing. Look at it this way: If the Death Star's (low estimate, apparently) 2.3 Zettaton laser were a 100 megaton nuke capable of fully depopulating New York State, a 100 megaton blast would be a piece of dynamite the size of a quarter.



> like I said I've no idea how Willy got the figures he got..and he's become so numbers obsessed he's ignoring a lot of stuff so you will have to debate that with him, I don't know what he did to come to those conclusions and I'd need to sift through his blog..to understand.


He's cray



> But he isn't wrong at all to say that Trek has been enormously underrated for years, and that its own fans are partially responsible for that. And his figures while they seem high as fuck to me..are supported even if vaguely by the consistent high end showings of what? Five decades of canon?


Yeah I don't doubt that.




willyvereb said:


> @Blue: Basically, you don't like it so it didn't happen?


Oh, I like it. It would amuse me enormously. I'd pay a lot of money to see Fang's face when a Star Trek ship took out a death star with a tractor beam in some kind of canon.

But it doesn't make sense.



Yupi said:


> I understand how important calculations are.



Not important at all. You can make them do almost literally anything you want.

Like how Willy just randomly decided to make this neutron star fragment be going 3% lightspeed in order to get his yottaton nonsense.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> out of curiosity Yupi,. were you Blor over on CBR? Because his old YYH arguments were almost word for word yours..
> 
> edit- the questions was directed at Chaos but I'm probably the only guy on the forum that watches TNG and Ds9 over at least once a year.
> 
> ...


 Hey Watchdog. No, I was not Blor on CBR, although I did read a lot of his posts. My arguments for YYH are a little different now. When I say a little, I mean a lot.

DS9 is a very underrated series, nonetheless, it is where I get a lot of my facts about TNG era ships. Between the Cardassian Dreadnought and the Quantum Torpedoes of the Defiant, you have planet-wiper/moon-buster feats for sure.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Cheers Chaos! ^_^ I'll be in every now and then. For better, this time around, though. Older and wiser, like us all.
> 
> I understand how important calculations are. I've seen a lot of yours with YYH and HxH, in fact. However, I also think that calculations should be used to support the intent of the author, and this doesn't always happen.
> 
> What do you think of the overall destructive capacity of Federation ships, TNG era? Are these calculations being mentioned in line with what we have seen in the Star Trek universe?



I don't really understand this argument, in good part because: The idea we know or can process the author intent is among the most subjective things, for ones. You're taking a person you don't know except for their writing, and effectively putting words into their mouth based on what you feel, he feels. It's not a very good debating style, particularly when you get into the stuff that makes no sense.

ignoring that... gotta judge by the narrative rather than what we think the author likes about the narrative. since authors have tenuous grasp of what they're actually causing at best. none of them tend to have much of a physics degree.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

Blue said:


> Bro you're not even in the same universe as the numbers we're talking about here thinking about that mountain the NX-01 blew up.



Yeah I'm going from "shittiest tech feat which is still way above what most people will claim for trek" too "We have to be careful not to rip the atmosphere off a  planet" to "moon cursplodes" 



Blue said:


> Triple digit megatons? Is nothing. Look at it this way: If the Death Star's (low estimate, apparently) 2.3 Zettaton laser were a 100 megaton nuke capable of fully depopulating New York State, a 100 megaton blast would be a piece of dynamite the size of a quarter.



and by the time of TOS you have fire power in the gigaton to teraton range. 



Blue said:


> He's cray



...Oh blue..


Blue said:


> Yeah I don't doubt that.



Then what's the problem? Assuming you're talking about "this is vaguely supported by canon"



Blue said:


> Oh, I like it. It would amuse me enormously. I'd pay a lot of money to see Fang's face when a Star Trek ship took out a death star with a tractor beam in some kind of canon.



Speaking of which him and EM have been oddly silent about this...Granted Wars got gutted recently..but



Blue said:


> But it doesn't make sense.



what doesn't Willy's figures or Gigaton to Teraton level fire power?

Without touching the rest..the speed I would think isn't what would make that feat insane so much as the absurd density of a core fragment from a neutron star...



Yupi said:


> Hey Watchdog. No, I was not Blor on CBR, although I did read a lot of his posts. My arguments for YYH are a little different now. When I say a little, I mean a lot.



It's funny how I ended up clashing with so many of your ideas without even knowing you existed...

I don't doubt that, time changes us all.




Blue said:


> DS9 is a very underrated series, nonetheless, it is where I get a lot of my facts about TNG era ships. Between the Cardassian Dreadnought and the Quantum Torpedoes of the Defiant, you have planet-wiper/moon-buster feats for sure.



There's actually a marked difference between TNG ships and Ds9 era ones. Well in durability any way...Dominion war era refits actually have armor and redundant systems on one another...so a Galaxy can have a nacelle blown off and keep on fighting, where prior they'd asplode and the like

edit- Yupi biggest issue with author intent is that Authors themselves often times are all over the place. its one of the reasons why consistent feats are the bread and butter of vs debating and why a detail oriented approach is so important

Word of God means little when Gods can error or lack consistency


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> I don't really understand this argument, in good part because: The idea we know or can process the author intent is among the most subjective things, for ones. You're taking a person you don't know except for their writing, and effectively putting words into their mouth based on what you feel, he feels. It's not a very good debating style, particularly when you get into the stuff that makes no sense.
> 
> ignoring that... gotta judge by the narrative rather than what we think the author likes about the narrative. since authors have tenuous grasp of what they're actually causing at best. *none of them tend to have much of a physics degree.*


 I didn't mean that we should judge by what we feel. Feats are always important, which is why authors use them to convey the narrative. However, when you get down to calculations, that is where problems can happen. Calculations of feats can help support the narrative, particularly if they do not contradict any other element of the narrative, but rather support it.

What I am finding is happening in this thread is that calculations of feats may be obscuring the authors intent, based on the other elements of the narrative that I have seen in the show. The bolded part in your comment highlights what I was trying to say the whole time: authors may not have physics degrees, so calculations can only serve as much in a debate about fictional realms.

EDIT: To put it simply, I think there is, at times, a marked difference between a raw feat (such as planet Earth being blown up) and a calculated feat (such as calculating the precise power output of the Enterprise-D's tractor beam).



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> edit- Yupi biggest issue with author intent is that Authors themselves often times are all over the place. its one of the reasons why consistent feats are the bread and butter of vs debating and why a detail oriented approach is so important
> 
> Word of God means little when Gods can error or lack consistency


 Perfectly put, mate. 

EDIT: Emphasis on "consistent feats". When a calculated feat messes up consistency, chances are the calculations were not taken into account by the author and may therefore be "false" (to an author without a physics degree).


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> I didn't mean that we should judge by what we feel. Feats are always important, which is why authors use them to convey the narrative. However, when you get down to calculations, that is where problems can happen. Calculations of feats can help support the narrative, particularly if they do not contradict any other element of the narrative, but rather support it.
> 
> What I am finding is happening in this thread is that calculations of feats may be obscuring the authors intent, based on the other elements of the narrative that I have seen in the show. The bolded part in your comment highlights what I was trying to say the whole time: authors may not have physics degrees, so calculations can only serve as much in a debate about fictional realms.



Again, my point is "The authors have no idea how powerful their characters are".
While it could be considered reaching, my opinion regarding DB's moonbuster outlier always sat along the lines of "Toriyama has no idea what a moon is and thus thought it wasn't out-of-place with town-buster and etc.". He clearly has a loose grasp what with 40 ton weight goku, certainly.

Whether or not they have physics degrees or not, however, where would you actually expect for a neutron star to have sat in their heads? particularly in this case, this seems like something pretty gorramn high-end. I doubt the authors didn't know moving stars around wasn't a gigantic feat.

that said: going to quote what has been said a thousand times: Calc'ed professionally or not, you're getting the same rough input, just heavily uninformed, from eyeballing. All that eyeballing a feat does is make a lazy calc from what little math and physics your brain possesses on shorthand. doing a proper calc of it helps to cut down on one's own lack of understanding and thus is still superior to going "no just eyeballing", which is a calc in and of itself.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 21, 2015)

TOS Era firepower feats range from petatons to exatons.
You know, when millions of tons are accelerated to lightspeed (and beyond) to pursue the Enterprise yet a lazy phaser bank burst disperses the ship even faster than it traveled you're dealing with some huge energies.
Reverse-scaling from Spock's claim on Nomad's firepower (= 90 photorps) also give similar results.
Shield-wise the Enterprise tanked bursts from the Planet Killer which would be 6 exatons of firepower, at least.
Generally during TOS the Enterprise usually takes a lot of beating before their shields fail.
Remember the Romulans busting starbases with their plasma torpedoes?
A year later the Enterprise tanks at least a dozen of these.

Still, this is actually nowhere as crazy as the Enterprise-D's feats from TNG and other 24th century high end showing.
Controlling the energy of a subspace rupture is also possible for them, even though upon detonation that thing would've wiped the entire star system.
As IWD said they can also easily mess with an entire planet.
With the spread of 5 photorps they even stopped a supposedly planetbuster soliton wave.
And yeah, that neutron star feat.
The speed of the fragment is actually nothing outrageous and since they only adjust it with a few degrees the feat is even less dependent on this.
Just the fact it has density almost comparable to the core of a neutron star which gives it thousands of times the mass of Earth.

Anyways, of course there are low showings and in spite of their feats no starship ever made the threat to blow up a planet.
But then again they often talk about TW or even MW range weaponry or power generation when even their hand phasers unleash more energy per shot.
That's just the way it goes.
Star Trek writers have little concern over the consistency of their tech and anything related to it.
They probably have a rough idea on what they intend for the starship to have but that pretty much clashes with all the ridiculous feats they pull in certain episodes.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> Again, my point is "The authors have no idea how powerful their characters are".
> While it could be considered reaching, my opinion regarding DB's moonbuster outlier always sat along the lines of "Toriyama has no idea what a moon is and thus thought it wasn't out-of-place with town-buster and etc.". He clearly has a loose grasp what with 40 ton weight goku, certainly.
> 
> Whether or not they have physics degrees or not, however, where would you actually expect for a neutron star to have sat in their heads? particularly in this case, this seems like something pretty gorramn high-end. I doubt the authors didn't know moving stars around wasn't a gigantic feat.
> ...


 I was just about to bring Toriyama up myself. I agree with what you have said: attention to detail is important. A person will know with much greater precision just how much power is contained within a destructive feat with a calculation.

But, that being said, there are times when calculations of certain feats may clash with the consistency of the narrative. Particularly if the author did not intend them to be feats of power to begin with.


----------



## Gibbs (Jan 21, 2015)

You think the Scimitar could tank a full powered attack from a Xindi Superweapon?


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> EDIT: Emphasis on "consistent feats". When a calculated feat messes up consistency, chances are the calculations were not taken into account by the author and may therefore be "false" (to an author without a physics degree).



Ah well a Calcs more a tool for the more literal minded to better understand feats, but its not really about what the author says.

For example, ignoring the special nature or mechanics of an ability for a calc or the nature of a power and calling it streamlining is wrong..and its tantamount to lying

but if an author states "Sensui's sacred energy aura could glass the surface of the earth or fuck with reality" and nothing at all supports that...then any calc done to quantify the maximum capacity of the guys holy chi is going to take precedent. Not because its a calc but because _the feats don't support the claim_



AgentAAA said:


> that said: going to quote what has been said a thousand times: Calc'ed professionally or not, you're getting the same rough input, just heavily uninformed, from eyeballing. All that eyeballing a feat does is make a lazy calc from what little math and physics your brain possesses on shorthand. doing a proper calc of it helps to cut down on one's own lack of understanding and thus is still superior to going "no just eyeballing", which is a calc in and of itself.



ehh this may not be the best way to explain it..as it implies most of us are fucking idiots who just need to shut up and blindly accept what the calcers put out.

That's not at all the way any of this works..its more "some people have trouble making an accurate interpretation based solely on the consistent on panel stuff and need someone to explain shit better in a way their literal minded heads work"

math thus serves as an awesome manner for folks with that mindset to see why some of us reached the conclusions we reached.

edit- no Eagles, no it probably couldn't but it'd blow the Xindi deathstar to hell before it ever got a chance...


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> Anyways, of course there are low showings and in spite of their feats no starship ever made the threat to blow up a planet.
> But then again they often talk about TW or even MW range weaponry or power generation when even their hand phasers unleash more energy per shot.
> That's just the way it goes.
> Star Trek writers have little concern over the consistency of their tech and anything related to it.
> They probably have a rough idea on what they intend for the starship to have but that pretty much clashes with all the ridiculous feats they pull in certain episodes.


 Why is it that Federation ships never blew up a planet? I mean, I remember in TOS when General Order 24 was given. To me, it sounded like it was more like a precise bombardment of specific locations. So there are obviously threats to wipe out all life on a planet. Have there been any General Orders that deal with other forms of planetary destruction?



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Ah well a Calcs more a tool for the more literal minded to better understand feats, but its not really about what the author says.
> 
> For example, ignoring the special nature or mechanics of an ability for a calc or the nature of a power and calling it streamlining is wrong..and its tantamount to lying
> 
> but if an author states "Sensui's sacred energy aura could glass the surface of the earth or fuck with reality" and nothing at all supports that...then any calc done to quantify the maximum capacity of the guys holy chi is going to take precedent. Not because its a calc but because _the feats don't support the claim_


 Well, the one I was thinking of was in DBZ with Cell's claim to destroy a solar system. To me, I think that was a case where all known calculations actually betray the intent of the author. Not saying that Togashi ever said Sensui's Sacred Aura could destroy the planet/or the Universe (because he didn't), but...what IF he DID say it...and meant it to be TRUE. Calculations don't help much there. All it would end up doing is discounting the statement due to inconsistency.

Useful for debating purposes? Absolutely. Understanding the universe as the author intended it? No.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 21, 2015)

The Phoenix King said:


> You think the Scimitar could tank a full powered attack from a Xindi Superweapon?


Depends how powerful is that.
How energetically it can blow up Earth.
I haven't seen ENT yet so I can't tell.
Although given the screenshot on what the second prototype of the Xindi weapon did, I have my doubts.
It only destroyed portion of the planet and not in a really energetic manner.
Most likely somewhere around the single digit zettatons, at best.
Anything below 200 yottatons or so won't be sufficient and given how they can at times put their entire power and reserves into the shields, at absolute maximum shield protection, neither would a Death Star like attack.

Either way, I doubt the weapon would be capable of tracking the Scimitar even without its cloaking and doubt it's durable enough to withstand an all too likely alpha strike from the Warbird.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> ehh this may not be the best way to explain it..as it implies most of us are fucking idiots who just need to shut up and blindly accept what the calcers put out.
> 
> That's not at all the way any of this works..its more "some people have trouble making an accurate interpretation based solely on the consistent on panel stuff and need someone to explain shit better in a way their literal minded heads work"
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but I'm more explaining why calcs generally work and why we use them. I'm not saying no calc should be questioned... but I AM saying that it's not valid to use author intent, or what we think the feat should be, over what we can find out with a consistent method.
though yeah, as has been said before, calcs are a ballpark and should be treated as such.



Yupi said:


> What I am finding is happening in this thread is that calculations of feats may be obscuring the authors intent, based on the other elements of the narrative that I have seen in the show. The bolded part in your comment highlights what I was trying to say the whole time: authors may not have physics degrees, so calculations can only serve as much in a debate about fictional realms.


and this is where the issue comes in again. We have no idea if it's obscuring the author's intent because this may or may not be intended, and unless the author makes an absolute statement, appealing to their intent is theory without supporting evidence. 

It's us saying "I don't think the author wanted X to be so powerful" but having no actual leg to stand on regarding his opinion.
Again, though, I think we've thrown out author intent before given there are several times where said intent outright contradicts narrative.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> and this is where the issue comes in again. We have no idea if it's obscuring the author's intent because this may or may not be intended, and unless the author makes an absolute statement, appealing to their intent is theory without supporting evidence.
> 
> It's us saying "I don't think the author wanted X to be so powerful" but having no actual leg to stand on regarding his opinion.
> Again, though, I think we've thrown out author intent before given there are several times where said intent outright contradicts narrative.


 May I ask a question then? Do you believe that the some of the calculations of feats for TOS/TNG/DS9 era Federation ships are accurate? I have a hard time believing that Federation craft are capable of yottaton outputs. Not that I'm not open to the idea, but it clashes with the overall consistency of feats in the Star Trek universe.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Why is it that Federation ships never blew up a planet? I mean, I remember in TOS when General Order 24 was given. To me, it sounded like it was more like a precise bombardment of specific locations. So there are obviously threats to wipe out all life on a planet. Have there been any General Orders that deal with other forms of planetary destruction?
> 
> Well, the one I was thinking off for the polar opposite was in DBZ with Cell's claim to destroy a solar system. To me, I think that was a case where all known calculations actually betray the intent of the author.


Why photorps that just few episodes prior stopped a planetbusting energy wave cannot blow up a meteor core made out of fuckin' natrium of all things?
Why tractor beams that towed moons and that neutron star fragment were too weak to pull in a single meteor?
Why tractor beams often only activate from a few hundred meters away when they can be projected to thousands of kilometers?
Why sublight engines can make the Enterprise-D actually travel faster than light?
Why cargo boxes offer cover when one got clearly vaporized by a hand phaser in a previous episode?
Why phasers ever hit people when crewmembers have feats of evading the beam while it already travels towards them?
Why fuckin Romulan blood vessels cannot be replicated when transporters can reconstruct their bodies just fine?
Why Romulans and Vulcans are suddenly so different from each other that Crusher asks a Klingon donor to save the Romulan crewmember?
Why you need medicines when transporters were shown to restore the body from any harm or illness?

Shall I list you more?
Star Trek's tech is an erratic mess.
I sa this but technically the same applies to practically every piece of fiction.
Either to a lesser or greater degree.
Positive feedback styled debating ensures that we take the positives, the high end feats, instead of trying to needlessly argue about such contradictions.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> May I ask a question then? Do you believe that the some of the calculations of feats for TOS/TNG/DS9 era Federation ships are accurate? I have a hard time believing that Federation craft are capable of yottaton outputs. Not that I'm not open to the idea, but it clashes with the overall consistency of feats in the Star Trek universe.



not having a hard time believing it, really, no. Given the way the federation's hyped up and how consistently their potential can be used for bad pops up? it's at least as consistent as high-end DB feats are.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> Why photorps that just few episodes prior stopped a planetbusting energy wave cannot blow up a meteor core made out of fuckin' natrium of all things?
> Why tractor beams that towed moons and that neutron star fragment were too weak to pull in a single meteor?
> Why tractor beams often only activate from a few hundred meters away when they can be projected to thousands of kilometers?
> Why sublight engines can make the Enterprise-D actually travel faster than light?
> ...


 Actually, I've noticed around here in the past that we usually take the most consistent feats. All of the feats that you have listed are awesome, high-end feats. But can we truly use the Enterprise towing that neutron star fragment in the Moab sector as an accurate judge of power, or is it an inconsistency? That is what I am trying to say: are the high-end feats consistent with those of Federation ships in general?



AgentAAA said:


> not having a hard time believing it, really, no. Given the way the federation's hyped up and how consistently their potential can be used for bad pops up? it's at least as consistent as high-end DB feats are.


 Yeah, well that is true. So...why haven't we seen starships of the Federation's era destroying planets? We see plenty of planet-busting ships, but they are usually way more powerful than the Enterprise.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Actually, I've noticed around here in the past that we usually take the most consistent feats. All of the feats that you have listed are awesome, high-end feats. But can we truly use the Enterprise towing that neutron star fragment in the Moab sector as an accurate judge of power, or is it an inconsistency? That is what I am trying to say: are the high-end feats consistent with those of Federation ships in general?



The most consistent feats?
no, not really, generally we take high-end feats.
DB's got mach some-thousands off of one feat.
I do believe bleach worked off of just one high speed feat for a while.
We generally go with uncontradicted high-ends.
Enterprise D's fairly above most other fed ships anyhoo.



Yupi said:


> Yeah, well that is true. So...why haven't we seen starships of the Federation's era destroying planets? We see plenty of planet-busting ships, but they are usually way more powerful than the Enterprise.


Because blowing up a planet is bad. even the klingons and romulans won't generally do things of that like when they have the chance. the federation attempts to be as peaceful and non-harmful as possible, and very rare is it that blowing up a planet solves a problem anyway.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> The most consistent feats?
> no, not really, generally we take high-end feats.
> DB's got mach some-thousands off of one feat.
> I do believe bleach worked off of just one high speed feat for a while.
> ...


 Awesome. Things have changed since I was last here. With regards to the Enterprise-D, there are some feats that have questions. It blew up a dying sun once, but that was more because they caused it to go supernova by destabilising the star itself. It also managed to cause earthquakes across an entire planet by using its phaser to drill into the mantle of  the planet, but again, that could be due to destabilisation of the mantle combining with the release of immense amounts of trapped gases..



AgentAAA said:


> Because blowing up a planet is bad. even the klingons and romulans won't generally do things of that like when they have the chance. the federation attempts to be as peaceful and non-harmful as possible, and very rare is it that blowing up a planet solves a problem anyway.


 A good answer. I don't know why I bothered asking the question. My next one is trickier, but it is the main reason why I have trouble believing Federation craft could destroy planets. Species 8472. If a single Bioship can destroy a Borg Cube, why does it take eight of them, plus a larger energy focussing bioship, to destroy a planet? 

Also, why are the ships that are shown destroying planets (such as, the Doomsday Machine) always depicted as being much stronger than the Federation ships? The Doomsday Machine may have hit the Enterprise's shields, but Galactus also hit Magneto's shield. Also, remember that the Enterprise's sister ship, the Constellation, was wrecked by the Doomsday Machine.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Actually, I've noticed around here in the past that we usually take the most consistent feats. All of the feats that you have listed are awesome, high-end feats. But can we truly use the Enterprise towing that neutron star fragment in the Moab sector as an accurate judge of power, or is it an inconsistency? That is what I am trying to say: are the high-end feats consistent with those of Federation ships in general?


Well, I do understand that you haven't been really active here but at least don't make up obvious bullshit as an argument.

No, we never took the "most consistent" feats.
You know what the most consitent feat really is?
Yup, the low ends. In case of characters that pretty much means human level stats.
They are humanoid and mostly act like it's expected from a person.
And since 2011 neither we really try to nitpick based on low showings.
Positive feedback styled debate is applied with more and more consistency.
We take the best feats.
Only exception is if there's a plot-based direct contradiction for the feat.
Given Star Trek's awful handling of technology you can't even make that.



> Yeah, well that is true. So...why haven't we seen starships of the Federation's era destroying planets? We see plenty of planet-busting ships, but they are usually way more powerful than the Enterprise.


So?
That changes nothing.
Allow me to show you a common example.
Character A has a teraton-range (country level) feat from the earlier chapters.
Similar feats occasionally occour in the series.
During the final battle against the final villain Character A and the rest of the crew is awed that the villain could split mountains in half.
Does it mean we have to throw out other feats?
Nope.
It just means the author has no sense of scale, which is pretty common.
The final villain has at least country-busting firepower since he's stronger than anyone else.
Simple as that.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Why is it that Federation ships never blew up a planet?[



...you're asking why a group of people who had a virus that could have exterminated the Borg...and felt bad and refused to do it..wouldn't blow up a planet?


They're going to try every conceivable method of dealing with a situation possible before brute forcing anything...They even found what S31 did to the founders appalling despite them being the only group other than the Borg and 8472 who absolutely deserved to be exterminated

[





Yupi said:


> I mean, I remember in TOS when General Order 24 was given. To me, it sounded like it was more like a precise bombardment of specific locations. So there are obviously threats to wipe out all life on a planet. Have there been any General Orders that deal with other forms of planetary destruction?



the episode where they went to that planetary Asylum Scotty was convinced he'd slag the entire planet before breaching the mad houses shields 



Yupi said:


> Well, the one I was thinking of was in DBZ with Cell's claim to destroy a solar system. To me, I think that was a case where all known calculations actually betray the intent of the author.



The calculations are irrelevant to why that;'s BS though, for starters the author intent there is what? to be taken literally?

even if true

1, feats overrule word of god and no feats support that claim

2, characters orders of magnitude stronger can't do that

3, nothing Cell did supports that

4, Cell is an unreliable narrator any way

problem is also Cell is A; a liar, B: Admitted to being fucking crazy , C: didn't even know half his powers existed and D: because all of the above, was proven time and time again to be full of it. ah and E: he was a megalomaniac and a braggart



Yupi said:


> Not saying that Togashi ever said Sensui's Sacred Aura could destroy the planet/or the Universe (because he didn't), but...what IF he DID say it...and meant it to be TRUE.



It wouldn't matter because the feats from the canon don't support it.



Yupi said:


> ] Calculations don't help much there. All it would end up doing is discounting the statement due to inconsistency.



Calculations have nothing to do with why that statement would be bunk


Yupi said:


> *Useful for debating purposes?* Absolutely. Understanding the universe as the author intended it? No.



kinda all that matters here

a deeper understanding of fiction is what your leisure time and a good book is for. This is where we ply that knowledge to dick wave via a set of standards and criteria for acceptable evidence



willyvereb said:


> Depends how powerful is that.
> How energetically it can blow up Earth.


It wasn't a brute force weapon, it was basically a phaser set on "disintegrate" dialed up to retarded extremes.

As for how fast it worked? I don't know if they ever actually showed it...



AgentAAA said:


> Fair enough, but I'm more explaining why calcs generally work and why we use them. I'm not saying no calc should be questioned... but I AM saying that it's not valid to use author intent, or what we think the feat should be, over what we can find out with a consistent method.
> though yeah, as has been said before, calcs are a ballpark and should be treated as such.



oh I know man, no worries, just wanted to preempt any one entering the thread, seeing that misreading it and pitching a fit


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> E: he was a megalomaniac and a braggart



who knew making someone with bits of Vegeta and Frieza would have caused such a personality backfire


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> who knew making someone with bits of Vegeta and Frieza would have caused such a* personality backfire*



I like how in the English dub he even ironically notes this... and then pokes fun at it.

too bad the moron didn't listen to himself, he might have made it out alive and been reduced to another "reformed villain"


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

willyvereb said:


> So?
> That changes nothing.
> Allow me to show you a common example.
> Character A has a teraton-range (country level) feat from the earlier chapters.
> ...


 But what you don't get, is that if Character A doesn't display said feat, Character A is generally regarded as being incapable of performing said feat. Now, one can go off and make a valid calculation about some element of the plot, such as a healing ray of light translating into planetary destruction, and that is all good. 

But then, along comes Character B, who easily defeats Character A. Character B cannot destroy a planet. Character B then joins up with 8 other beings as powerful as him, so he can build up enough energy to destroy a planet. And he does. To me, the feat of planetary destruction by Character B holds more weight than a calculation that contradicts said feat.

I'm not saying that someone has to destroy a planet in order to be proven doing so. A calculation of a feat of power that matches the output of a planet destroyer is more than sufficient. But if a large number of feats contradict the calculation, then I would be more inclined to discard the calculation.



willyvereb said:


> Well, I do understand that you haven't been really active here but at least don't make up obvious bullshit as an argument.
> 
> No, we never took the "most consistent" feats.
> You know what the most consitent feat really is?
> ...


 Don't get mad, man. I'm sorry, but some of the members here in 2011 nitpicked based on lower showings. Maybe not you or others, but quite a few did. Sometimes, high-end feats were ignored outright as outliers if they messed up with the consistency of the feats other characters displayed. 

It was not my intention to nitpick either. I just haven't seen any real proof that Federation starships are anything higher than life-wipers or moon-busters. For example, they are always outclassed by ships that are shown to be planet-busters. Watch "The Doomsday Machine" from TOS, or "The Scorpion" from VGR. All have proven planet-busters that have energy ratings off the scale when compared to Federation vessels.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Don't get mad, man. I'm sorry, but some of the members here in 2011 nitpicked based on lower showings. Maybe not you or others, but quite a few did. Sometimes, high-end feats were ignored outright as outliers if they messed up with the consistency of the feats other characters displayed.
> 
> It was not my intention to nitpick either. I just haven't seen any real proof that Federation starships are anything higher than life-wipers or moon-busters. For example, they are always outclassed by ships that are shown to be planet-busters. Watch "The Doomsday Machine" from TOS, or "The Scorpion" from VGR. All are proven planet-busters that have energy ratings off the scale when compared to Federation vessels.



...ok? Not like they can't be higher than planet or like those aren't high-ends. they're just very good planet-busters. even planet killer did it's job fairly casually though.
That'd more prop them up than anything.w
Willy's posted several things that can be interpreted as planet-level, so if you don't see evidence we're reading different threads.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> I like how in the English dub he even ironically notes this... and then pokes fun at it.
> 
> too bad the moron didn't listen to himself, he might have made it out alive and been reduced to another "reformed villain"



frankly cell... I liked him. I would have hated him as a reformed villain. there's actually a fic regarding that called "honor trip" among the DBZ fanfic community. has a lot of love and fame despite basically existing as a gigantic jerk of cell's dick.he had too much bullshit to keep the story going were he to keep being in it.


----------



## ChaosTheory123 (Jan 21, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> I like how in the English dub he even ironically notes this... and then pokes fun at it.
> 
> too bad the moron didn't listen to himself, he might have made it out alive and been reduced to another "reformed villain"



Further off topic, but I sort of feel Cell and his Cell Jrs were a missed opportunity for a generation xerox of Goku vs Piccolo Jr

Granted, it'd be contrived if done poorly, but I could have seen it working too 

Granted, the idea wasn't possible anyway due to Goku's popularity and shit, but eh.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

ChaosTheory123 said:


> Further off topic, but I sort of feel Cell and his Cell Jrs were a missed opportunity for a generation xerox of Goku vs Piccolo Jr
> 
> Granted, it'd be contrived if done poorly, but I could have seen it working too
> 
> Granted, the idea wasn't possible anyway due to Goku's popularity and shit, but eh.



might have worked overall... but I'm also certain that by the end of cell's arc, people were thinking along the lines of "fucking finally.". I don't think that'd work without at least happening after buu or something. People were done with cell.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> .
> frankly cell... I liked him. I would have hated him as a reformed villain. there's actually a fic regarding that called "honor trip" among the DBZ fanfic community. has a lot of love and fame despite basically existing as a gigantic jerk of cell's dick.he had too much bullshit to keep the story going were he to keep being in it.



DBZ fanfics are godawful

except for the one where Krillen "beat" Arisia from Invincible by essentially letting her rape him  



ChaosTheory123 said:


> Further off topic, but I sort of feel Cell and his Cell Jrs were a missed opportunity for a generation xerox of Goku vs Piccolo Jr
> 
> Granted, it'd be contrived if done poorly, but I could have seen it working too
> 
> Granted, the idea wasn't possible anyway due to Goku's popularity and shit, but eh.



You mean have them randomly fight each other with the others techs or something?


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> ...ok? Not like they can't be higher than planet or like those aren't high-ends. they're just very good planet-busters. even planet killer did it's job fairly casually though.
> That'd more prop them up than anything.w
> Willy's posted several things that can be interpreted as planet-level, so if you don't see evidence we're reading different threads.


 That may be true. I doubt it in the case of Species 8472, as they needed 8 Bioships + 1 Super Bioship to destroy a planet in the first place. But I think this can be ignored as a low end feat. It could be the case with the Doomsday Machine though. The fact still remains that the Doomsday Machine quickly overwhelmed the shields of the USS Constellation, which does suggest it packs far more power than the Constitution-class warships.


----------



## ChaosTheory123 (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> might have worked overall... but I'm also certain that by the end of cell's arc, people were thinking along the lines of "fucking finally.". I don't think that'd work without at least happening after buu or something. People were done with cell.



Right, forgot liking Cell was more of a western thing, wasn't it?



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> You mean have them randomly fight each other with the others techs or something?



Nah, I sort of like that stupid story telling trope where the next generation faces identical issues to the former generation

A Cell Jr would parallel Piccolo Jr

That kind of thing

Granted, it's easy to fuck that shit up (given it IS lazy writing ), but it can be done well


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> That may be true. I doubt it in the case of Species 8472, as they needed 8 Bioships + 1 Super Bioship to destroy a planet in the first place. But I think this can be ignored as a low end feat. It could be the case with the Doomsday Machine though. The fact still remains that the Doomsday Machine quickly overwhelmed the shields of the USS Constellation, which does suggest it packs far more power than the Constitution-class warships.



yes, but it's also far and above not trying to do anything. these are all it's extremely casual feats/something it does to feed itself. there was never a point where it seriously engaged anyone.

though if you wanna see some real low-ends, play star trek online. 10 KM max range for fed/klingon/Rom


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

ChaosTheory123 said:


> Right, forgot liking Cell was more of a western thing, wasn't it?


Well, partially that, but more: The arc went on for a long time. people needed a break from androids after a while. I definitely remember being exhausted with it.
Though I'll admit it's partially personal preference making me say this - of the main 4 arcs, I found the character designs of the androids and cell the least interesting.


> Nah, I sort of like that stupid story telling trope where the next generation faces identical issues to the former generation
> 
> A Cell Jr would parallel Piccolo Jr
> 
> ...



might have been neat, but I feel it'd overly extend cell's story. it's not like KP where we were really still in shock at all the shit he did - people were kind of getting tired of cell's bullshit.
I'd go so far as to say KP's a superior villain, in all honesty, at least in how he was executed.
unfortunately I don't think that has a fanfic.

Among the few alternate reality things that doesn't, come to think, though most DBZ fics with the exception of Break through the limit and that one with master roshi fighting the androids suck anyway.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> yes, but it's also far and above not trying to do anything. these are all it's extremely casual feats/something it does to feed itself. there was never a point where it seriously engaged anyone.


 That is my point. I don't think that the Doomsday Machine was trying all that hard when it fought the Enterprise. I believe that the Enterprise's shields resisting the Doomsday Machine's anti-proton beam is the same as the time Magneto's shields resisted one of Galactus' blasts. But I get what you are saying: it could all be about different degrees of planet-busting capacity. The degree of difference between the two vessels could be immense, even if both were limited to planetary destruction.




AgentAAA said:


> though if you wanna see some real low-ends, play star trek online. 10 KM max range for fed/klingon/Rom


  Yeah. That ain't right. They do that a lot with space-sims. And flight sims.


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 21, 2015)

Yupi said:


> That is my point. I don't think that the Doomsday Machine was trying all that hard when it fought the Enterprise. I believe that the Enterprise's shields resisting the Doomsday Machine's anti-proton beam is the same as the time Magneto's shields resisted one of Galactus' blasts. But I get what you are saying: it could all be about different degrees of planet-busting capacity. The degree of difference between the two vessels could be immense, even if both were limited to planetary destruction.


Major thing with planet-killer is we actually don't know it's upper limit. It wasn't focusing really hard to blow up planets, it just needed to to keep itself going. In other words, blowign up a planet was casual as shit.



> Yeah. That ain't right. They do that a lot with space-sims. And flight sims.



Hell, just the fact that you've got, not only that, but things like single prometheus-class vessels taking on borg cubes with a hope of winning, or a team of starships taking on some borg version of v'ger... it's like they lit canon on fire then threw it in a dump.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 21, 2015)

AgentAAA said:


> Major thing with planet-killer is we actually don't know it's upper limit. It wasn't focusing really hard to blow up planets, it just needed to to keep itself going. In other words, blowign up a planet was casual as shit.


 I never really had trouble believing that. It was more the power of the Federation ships, especially since they have been repeatedly shown as being weaker than proven planet-busters.

That being said, I found the calculation page you guys were talking about. I have seen that episode (TNG: The Masterpiece Society). I didn't know the fragment was that large. Mind you, the Enterprise-D wasn't casually towing it. It took a transphasic tractor beam to adjust its course to ensure the colony's safety. But still, even doing that would take a lot of energy. I just didn't think it would take that much. 




AgentAAA said:


> Hell, just the fact that you've got, not only that, but things like single prometheus-class vessels taking on borg cubes with a hope of winning, or a team of starships taking on some borg version of v'ger... it's like they lit canon on fire then threw it in a dump.


 There has actually been a lot of that stuff going on in Star Trek games. Wasn't it Star Trek: Legacy that claimed the Borg were created by V'Ger? I don't know where the link between the Borg and V'Ger started.


----------



## Blue (Jan 22, 2015)

I haven't read most of this crap but nobody can bust planets in Star Trek besides Species 8472, and god that's a dumb name for a race.

A giant fleet of the biggest ships the Cardassians and Romulans had, most of which massively outweighed the Enterprise, opened all the way up on a planet they thought was full of shapeshifters. Didn't even come close to destroying it, although they cooked the surface quite well.

Here's that:

[YOUTUBE]nU4lYIuvg58[/YOUTUBE]

Those torpedoes are clearly continent busters, but planetary? Not even close.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jan 22, 2015)

The Krenim completely erased quite a few planets. Then we had the 29th Century ship that blew up and took Earth with it. And the Xindi planet killer. Genesis, Trilithium, and Red Matter. The modified photon torpedoes that put that star into overload.

There is actually a lot of ways to destroy planets, they just get overlooked sometimes. Hell Voyager had an episode where the crew wondered if Janeway was trying to blow up a small planet.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 22, 2015)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> The Krenim completely erased quite a few planets. Then we had the 29th Century ship that blew up and took Earth with it. And the Xindi planet killer. Genesis, Trilithium, and Red Matter. The modified photon torpedoes that put that star into overload.
> 
> There is actually a lot of ways to destroy planets, they just get overlooked sometimes. Hell Voyager had an episode where the crew wondered if Janeway was trying to blow up a small planet.



they can also create entire solar systems from nothing..with the Genesis device

and revive dead suns...Really Federation tech got pretty wild towards the end there.

I think what Blue is saying though is that the UFP lack the means to conventionally brute force planetary bodies the size of say earth and need to either supe up their conventional torps as you noted or rely on hax.

And he's right..but I don't know if that would actually affect the calcs for energy output or not...or diminish the claims that they can reach those levels, since when pressed, they've totally done it as has been noted.


----------



## willyvereb (Jan 22, 2015)

Well, they clearly have ways of moving planetary bodies around and we know that tractor beams can be also used offensively if ever needed.
So yeah, not being able to bust planets is because the authors never really realized how powerful the made their own verse to be.
Seriously, during the same episode they said the Enterprise-D's output is in the terawatt range and they used this "terawatt" output to push a considerable chunk of a neutron star away.
We can't even play to vagueness because the density of the fragment was claimed directly there.
They were just...dumb.
Nothing really new for Star Trek plots.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jan 22, 2015)

I'd say it, at first glance, sounds rather out of place. Sure. But looking at the long line of utterly ridiculous tech the Federation made it becomes very apparent the writers really don't give a darn about scale and will randomly drop things that sound crazy for good drama. So the question becomes how do you draw the line with Star Trek? Like Voyager managed to asspull infinite speed that one time. Trek is just utterly random like that.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 22, 2015)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> I'd say it, at first glance, sounds rather out of place. Sure. But looking at the long line of utterly ridiculous tech the Federation made it becomes very apparent the writers really don't give a darn about scale and will randomly drop things that sound crazy for good drama. So the question becomes how do you draw the line with Star Trek? Like Voyager managed to asspull infinite speed that one time. Trek is just utterly random like that.



Same way we go with everything? Consistent high end showings while acknowledging plot and the like?

Granted you need to know the material to make the call, but the same can be said for all fiction.



willyvereb said:


> Well, they clearly have ways of moving planetary bodies around and we know that tractor beams can be also used offensively if ever needed.



That's the best part, they may have the brute force way but they also have a few tricks and hax that they can also employ, on top of through their tractor beams.

Decent sign of their capability that.

I know one of the ways they can do it is through diminishing the density and mass of an object, another way is fucking with time/space and through gravity hax and they may be able to do it with wormholes..though that'd probably end in spectacular violence


----------



## Yupi (Jan 23, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> I think what Blue is saying though is that the UFP lack the means to conventionally brute force planetary bodies the size of say earth and need to either supe up their conventional torps as you noted or rely on hax.


 Well, that's it, isn't it? Is it all about power, or is it more of their tech being hax? I don't dispute whether they had tech that could potentially destroy a planet through some non-power based way. Such as Genesis. It could never destroy a planet instantly, but it could eventually by breaking it down in order to reform it. The Red Matter didn't rely on the power of the ship that carried it, but could, on it's own, create a black hole that could destroy planets. 

It isn't the same as doing so by producing that kind of power from a Federation starship reactor and blasting it through a phaser bank. I did see the episode where the Enterprise pulled the neutron star fragment. Even in that episode, LaForge stated that the fragment was too massive for the tractor beam to move under the Enterprise's power. So they introduce new tech: a "multiphasic" tractor beam. Same power (may or may not be terawatt), but different tech. I dunno, maybe the new tech allowed the Enterprise to pull the star fragment by changing it's gravitational constant, making the object far less massive, thus requiring less power to pull. That had actually happened before in the series too, so it isn't a groundless theory. It also goes along with the general "special tech" of the Federation and, more importantly, doesn't clash with the consistency of Federation starship power output showings

And this is what I was saying that we must be careful with calculations. If the calculations are correct, then awesome. You have a firm piece of evidence to use in a debate. But if there is any facet of the calculation that leaves room for doubt, then it can be a debate in and of itself.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 23, 2015)

Yupi said:


> Well, that's it, isn't it? Is it all about power, or is it more of their tech being hax?]



Given they can blast planetoids to pieces and even a small amount of Anti matter from their reactor can fuck up a decent sized continent? It seems like they can do both if they wanted too, whether its by augmenting the payload of a few torps or via fucking with a planets mass, or doing something to the planet with protomatter (which became so common place by the 24 century that even terrorists could get a hold of it). Or whatever

for convenience sake they seem to go with hax though..Maybe its taxing on the replicators or "expensive" or something?


Yupi said:


> I don't dispute whether they had tech that could potentially destroy a planet through some non-power based way. Such as Genesis. It could never destroy a planet instantly, but it could eventually by breaking it down in order to reform it. The Red Matter didn't rely on the power of the ship that carried it, but could, on it's own, create a black hole that could destroy planets.



Well first of all Genesis converted a nebula into a planet and a Star...so it definitely has the energy to vaporize or mass scatter a planet..


Yupi said:


> It isn't the same as doing so by producing that kind of power from a Federation starship reactor and blasting it through a phaser bank. I did see the episode where the Enterprise pulled the neutron star fragment. Even in that episode, LaForge stated that the fragment was too massive for the tractor beam to move under the Enterprise's power. So they introduce new tech: a "multiphasic" tractor beam. Same power (may or may not be terawatt), but different tech. I dunno, maybe the new tech allowed the Enterprise to pull the star fragment by changing it's gravitational constant, making the object far less massive, thus requiring less power to pull. That had actually happened before in the series too, so it isn't a groundless theory. It also goes along with the general "special tech" of the Federation and, more importantly, doesn't clash with the consistency of Federation starship power output showings



That would still require a great deal of energy though, and control over gravity and matter and energy as to render power out or not somewhat moot.

Like I said a lot supports Willy and a lot supports the more conservative stuff too. This isn't outlandish wank the guys talking about. 


Yupi said:


> And this is what I was saying that we must be careful with calculations. If the calculations are correct, then awesome. You have a firm piece of evidence to use in a debate. But if there is any facet of the calculation that leaves room for doubt, then it can be a debate in and of itself.



This isn't a case of the math being off, its a data issue though. Willy's not fraudulently doing anything..


----------



## AgentAAA (Jan 23, 2015)

Yupi said:


> There has actually been a lot of that stuff going on in Star Trek games. Wasn't it Star Trek: Legacy that claimed the Borg were created by V'Ger? I don't know where the link between the Borg and V'Ger started.



an off-hand comment regarding a machine race helping v'ger that was hinted to be the borg themselves sensing a kindred spirit, actually. was from one of the writers, but damned if I'm willing to look up the quote. borg were ruined for me by voyager anyhoo


----------



## Blue (Jan 23, 2015)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> The Krenim completely erased quite a few planets. Then we had the 29th Century ship that blew up and took Earth with it. And the Xindi planet killer. Genesis, Trilithium, and Red Matter. The modified photon torpedoes that put that star into overload.
> 
> There is actually a lot of ways to destroy planets, they just get overlooked sometimes. Hell Voyager had an episode where the crew wondered if Janeway was trying to blow up a small planet.



Yeah those are all hax, however. Which is completely legitimate if we're just asking if Trek can bust planets, but it isn't the kind of raw power we're talking about here.



> Well first of all Genesis converted a nebula into a planet and a Star...so it definitely has the energy to vaporize or mass scatter a planet..


Chain reaction, not energy from the device itself.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 23, 2015)

Blue it wasn't even supposed to design a star...only transform the surface of a planet into a paradise world 

The nebula itself may have provided the matter but the energy in the conversion came from the Device itself and from the protomatter


----------



## Yupi (Jan 23, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Given they can blast planetoids to pieces and even a small amount of Anti matter from their reactor can fuck up a decent sized continent? It seems like they can do both if they wanted too, whether its by augmenting the payload of a few torps or via fucking with a planets mass, or doing something to the planet with protomatter (which became so common place by the 24 century that even terrorists could get a hold of it). Or whatever


It is still a bit of a stretch if Federation warships are shown busting continents and blowing up planetoids/moons. I have already said that I think that standard Federation warships are definitely moon-busters. My main objection was with some of the power output claims. Such as the Enterprise being able to generate yottatons of energy, or being able to withstand the Doomsday Machine's blasts based purely on power. It would be awesome if it can output that kind of power, but the fact that it is questionable is the only thing that stops me from going along with it.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> for convenience sake they seem to go with hax though..Maybe its taxing on the replicators or "expensive" or something?


See, to me, that is pure Star Trek. I like watching the show because, even if they find themselves out of their depth, they can always find a way around it. I like the exotic technology they come up with. This is also more the status quo whenever they are performing their high-end feats.




The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Well first of all Genesis converted a nebula into a planet and a Star...so it definitely has the energy to vaporize or mass scatter a planet..


Did it create the star too? Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing any stellar bodies in the nebula. I might need to watch the movie again, but I do remember that the device works at a sub-atomic level. It does so gradually. My main question is how fast were the star and planet created? Because if it was too gradually, it renders it less impressive as a feat. Working at a sub-atomic level, a device that can quickly create a planet can eventually create a star. However, if it was done so relatively fast, well, then we have an awesome feat. But still, not what you'd usually find aboard a Federation starship. Nor does it rely on the power of the starship itself. The GENESIS device is not a Federation starship, nor is it a weapon normally found on one. Same goes for Red Matter or other exotic tech. It is the power of Federation warships themselves that is the main focus of my concern.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> That would still require a great deal of energy though, and control over gravity and matter and energy as to render power out or not somewhat moot.


Without a doubt. In fact, in that episode, the multiphasic tractor beam nearly blew out the tractor beam emitters, which were taxed to four time their normal capacity. However, we are still talking about exotic technology here. It most likely does not work on pure power alone, which is why the calculations are thrown into doubt. If we can't calculate the actual amount of power that was used by the multiphasic tractor beam, then it probably shouldn't be used as a feat to gauge power output.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Like I said a lot supports Willy and a lot supports the more conservative stuff too. This isn't outlandish wank the guys talking about.


Yes, a lot supports the fact that Federation warships are capable moon-busters. Planet-busting is the next tier above that. A starship capable of casually busting a moon may or may not be capable of busting a planet. My main conflict is with Federation warships and their complement. If they are carrying Red Matter or some exotic device, then of course, they are planet-busters. That wasn't my objection. I was objecting to the raw power claims, such as yottaton outputs based on towing a neutron star with exotic tech. For me, exatons for TNG era ships seems to be closer to the power output of a standard Federation vessel. Even in the scene Blue posted, that was easily exaton level firepower. Hundreds of yottatons, to me, is too much of a stretch. Not a wank, but still too much of a stretch.

*EDIT* - Watched the soliton wave episode again. The soliton wave was said to possess an energy level capable of blowing away Lemma II by the time it reached the planet. The Enterprise-D's shields were brought down to 12% by flying through the wave. The wave itself was also dispersed instantaneously by a spread of three photon torpedoes. To me, this seems to be the most reliable high-end feat of a Federation warships capabilities. Two things here. One, it all hinges on a single statement, as the soliton wave is never proven to be capable of destroying a planet. If the statement is true and soliton wave is a planet destroyer, then that could bump Federation warship power levels into the high exaton to low/mid zettaton range. If it is false, then the feat falls more in line with the mid exaton range showings. Two, even if the statement is true, was it already at planet-destroying power by the time the Enterprise-D hit it? These soliton waves are capable of attracting soliton particles, making it able to increase it's power as it goes. It could theoretically take out a star.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jan 23, 2015)

Yupi said:


> It is still a bit of a stretch if Federation warships are shown busting continents and blowing up planetoids/moons. I have already said that I think that standard Federation warships are definitely moon-busters. My main objection was with some of the power output claims. Such as the Enterprise being able to generate yottatons of energy, or being able to withstand the Doomsday Machine's blasts based purely on power. It would be awesome if it can output that kind of power, but the fact that it is questionable is the only thing that stops me from going along with it.]



if one or two suped up torps can bust a moon, or a few dozen can do it conventionally and a GCS carries what? two hundred? 

sounds less impossible when you think of it in terms of "throwing more explosives at a thing"




Yupi said:


> See, to me, that is pure Star Trek. I like watching the show because, even if they find themselves out of their depth, they can always find a way around it. I like the exotic technology they come up with. This is also more the status quo whenever they are performing their high-end feats.



indeed, but it does go to supporting Willy.





Yupi said:


> ]My main question is how fast were the star and planet created?



within five to ten seconds IIRC.




Yupi said:


> It is the power of Federation warships themselves that is the main focus of my concern.



and like I said there's enough supporting both a more conservative take and one going for Willy's

we've also come up with the perception that these guys were weaker than they are too, remember that. We've got near nine years of arguments in our heads...to work against.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jan 23, 2015)

Hmm I'm not sure the Genesis device created the star but it sounds really fucking improbable that the planet was created in the habitable zone of the existing star so who knows. I'd have said no way if that crazy dude didn't reignite the dead star in DS9 with protomatter.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 23, 2015)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> if one or two suped up torps can bust a moon, or a few dozen can do it conventionally and a GCS carries what? two hundred?
> 
> sounds less impossible when you think of it in terms of "throwing more explosives at a thing"


 Ah. Usually when I say "moon-buster", I mean one-shotting a moon or near enough to that. Federation warships (or tech similar to Fed level) have shown that degree of firepower with anti-matter weapons alone. If we look at a cumulative effect, that's a different kettle of fish. Still going from exatons (moon-busting) to zettatons (planet-busting)...that a jump by a factor of 1000. So two hundred torpedos will mess a planet like Earth up, but they won't destroy it. And again, this is not quite yottaton territory yet.






The Immortal WatchDog said:


> Indeed, but it does go to supporting Willy.


 I don't think it does. I've kind of already proved that. The calculations make it look as though it the Enterprise-D's power that moved the neutron star fragment. But it wasn't. It was the exotic tech. Exotic tech usually provides a plot device that allows the Federation to do things that it doesn't have the raw power to do. Like moving moons. 

Taken from the episode "Deja Q" 

_LAFORGE: You know, this might work. We can't change the gravitational constant of the universe, but if we wrap a low level warp field around that moon, we could reduce its gravitational constant. Make it lighter so we can push it. _

The Enterprise-D could use up all of it's power, but it still would not get the moon to move, unless it was a small moon/asteroid. In the end, it needed to use exotic tech to make the moon lighter, so it doesn't require as much energy to move. The calculation doesn't take this ability of the Enterprise-D into account.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> within five to ten seconds IIRC.


 Well, if that is the case, then Genesis could be at star-busting levels of power. That could put the Federation at tenaton levels of power. It may not make their ships that powerful, but it could give the Federation the capacity to output tenaton levels of power. Or at least ninaton levels of power. I mean, there was also that episode where the tried to use a modified torpedo class to fuel a dying star, which ultimately ended up destroying it. It's not too much of a stretch to say that Federation ships are potential star-busters if we use those two feats.




The Immortal WatchDog said:


> and like I said there's enough supporting both a more conservative take and one going for Willy's
> 
> *we've also come up with the perception that these guys were weaker than they are too*, remember that. We've got near nine years of arguments in our heads...to work against.


 I think you summed up what my main problem is. I've watched the series and loved it. Based on what I saw in the series as a whole, Federation starships were more or less moon-busters. Every time an alien planet-buster showed up, it always outclassed Federation vessels. The fact that the regular feats displayed by Federation starships were low-end makes this even more of a problem.

I am open to persuasion and some of the arguments made do have good points, but it isn't enough. Well, for me, anyway.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jan 23, 2015)

Like I said before Janeway once wanted a bomb she could fit on a shuttle that the crew wondered if it was meant to blow up a small planet. And that was the small bomb.




> TUVOK: Calibration complete. Phase modulator. Detonator circuits?
> KIM: On standby.
> TUVOK: We're ready to load the gravimetric charge.
> KIM: This looks like enough for a fifty isoton explosion.
> ...


----------



## Yupi (Jan 23, 2015)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Like I said before Janeway once wanted a bomb she could fit on a shuttle that the crew wondered if it was meant to blow up a small planet. And that was the small bomb.


 True. Then there is also the modified photon torpedo that blew up a star in "Half a Life". 

That would put Federation torpedoes at star-buster levels, if set to full power.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jan 23, 2015)

Blue said:


> It's stated on-screen to be 12 exawatts, some place in the episode about the Q who thinks she's human. And that's consistent with the vast majority of feats.



It was 12.75 exawatts _per_ something that got off by Q's antics. Oddly back in season 2 Riker said they couldn't manage a terawatt. Oh consistency.


----------



## Yupi (Jan 24, 2015)

> HANNAH: Your ship. What kind of energy output is it capable of generating?
> LAFORGE: We have a matter-antimatter warp reaction system, the most powerful in the Starfleet. Normally, it kicks plasma up into the *terawatt* range. Why?



In the same episode they move the neutron star fragment, oddly enough.


----------

