J-Sheridan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Klingons can destroy a planet's atmosphere in seconds, dudebro. And really, you don't get it. He's not pulling a rage filled fanboy defence: you are. All he's doing is telling you how silly it is to compare the two, let alone get all worked up about it like you are. One-Shot Wonder that remains one-shot wonder that you keep citing. Dosent make it any less of a one-shot wonder. Klingons can destroy planets... Why were they losing to the Dominion again ? How do you propose the Klingons deploy this magical super-weapon against the Empire ? It will take the Klingons years to travel across the Star Wars galaxy deploying these things (Which you have no evidence they can do beyond one EXTREMELY SPECIFIC example that was never repeated when it would have been extremely useful to do so later). While the Empire can casually exterminate the entire Federation in a month just with the fleet they had at Endor. When will this point actually penetrate your skull ? Star Wars Fast Star Trek Slow Star Wars thousands of Star Destroyers ALONE Star Trek thousands COMBINED Or do you think the Federation was just holding back when they were hurling 40 ships in various states of repair complete with families in a desperate bid to stop a single Borg cube even after being alerted 1 year before they were coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmayshi Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Like I said before I completly agree with you that's what happened. However due to the way the star wars canon is set up is everything that is in the movies is 100% fact and that's the way it happpens we have to go by even the most primitive special effects. So that means the asteroid that hits the star destroyer actually explodes like the one hit by the turbo laser Stupid but that's how the star wars canon goes No, now you're just being entirely to literal and its getting extremely silly in my opinion. Since everyone knows movies like making things explode. But even with duplicate effects its usually rather obvious as to what they are inferring with regards to various scenes/weapons. Still not as bad as most action movies though, Car nudges a curb and the car explodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 One-Shot Wonder that remains one-shot wonder that you keep citing. Dosent make it any less of a one-shot wonder. Klingons can destroy planets... Why were they losing to the Dominion again ? How do you propose the Klingons deploy this magical super-weapon against the Empire ? It will take the Klingons years to travel across the Star Wars galaxy deploying these things (Which you have no evidence they can do beyond one EXTREMELY SPECIFIC example that was never repeated when it would have been extremely useful to do so later). While the Empire can casually exterminate the entire Federation in a month just with the fleet they had at Endor. When will this point actually penetrate your skull ? Star Wars Fast Star Trek Slow Star Wars thousands of Star Destroyers ALONE Star Trek thousands COMBINED Or do you think the Federation was just holding back when they were hurling 40 ships in various states of repair complete with families in a desperate bid to stop a single Borg cube even after being alerted 1 year before they were coming. No really, you still don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Sheridan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 No really, you still don't get it. Its pointless to compare the two sides so you entered a thread that pits both sides against each other and posting random garbage even though you believe its pointless... are you intentionally trying to troll or are you just that dense ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNCommand Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) No really, you still don't get it. What's there to get? That Star Wars is so ridiculously overpowered caused by combining fantasy with space that any attempt at a fight between Star Wars and Star Trek tech ends with a curb stomp? Also, I thought Han solo's disbelief about the Empire having destroyed Alderaan came from the idea of how it was done, usually the Empire will bombard the planet just like in Kotor leaving nothing but barren wasteland and ruins, the Death Star on the other hand completely obliterated the entire planet, this was the damage output that caused Solo to doubt Empire involvement at first. So to summarize, yes a couple of Star Destroyers can and have destroyed all life on planets and left nothing but huge craters, but only the Death Star will wipe it out of existence. Edited February 6, 2012 by SNCommand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talkative Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why are you even discussing hypothetical super weapons? Proven naval tactics involve the use of smaller tenders to provide mobile support and rapid focus of firepower for fleet actions. Essentially, Star Trek lacks gunboats beyond even their lack of fighters. They have cruisers, frigates, and battleships. As sort of an afterthought some of the games have attempted to include torpedo boats and destroyers, but Deep Space 9 made it a *********** plot point to rag on how unique the Defiant was (an apparently one-off destroyer). In short, Gene Roddenberry was no naval warfare expert and, to be blunt, never really intended for Star Trek to be some sort of space navy archetype. To be fair, neither was George Lucas, but he at least stole from source materials that were developed with a strong grasp of naval tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotli Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) There is one thing with the Fleet comment by Han Solo "the entire star fleet can't destroy a planet" that can make the whole thing irrelevant is that it impossible to tell what he talking about, it could be the entire Imperial Navy (highly unlikely) or it could be a an imperial fleet (like that bunch of warships, IE the Deathstar = 50% of the warship there). For example on Earth there's the Pacific Fleet and the Atlantic Fleet and so on and theres no way that the Atlantic Fleet is the entire US Navy. Edited February 7, 2012 by Kotli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IroquoisPliskin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I was just playing the game and "proton torpedo's" if that is to be taken at name firing Hydrogen ions at SW shields well stop them form working. That's impulse.... I am going to dismiss that as technobabble though. Don't seriously respond to this it was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocNessMonster Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I'd say the Imperial Fleet just due to the fact that the Empire covers most of their galaxy while Klingon space is one of many empires in just one quadrant of our galaxy. Galactic Empire in Star Wars would have a superior resource advantage. It took many of the major forces of the Alpha Quadrant to defeat the Dominion. Now the Dominion vs the Galactic Empire might be a more far comparison. Edited February 7, 2012 by RocNessMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeckTator Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 But there were cloaking in SW too. When the Millenium Facon attach itself at the back of the star destoyers radar, that admiral says: "No ship that small has a cloaking device". So they had cloaking technology in SW too, even though we never saw it used in the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellspawnxxx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 If you're going into crew make-up, Star Wars has it, hands-down. As far as I remember, Star Trek had nothing compared to the power of the Force-users. Even in the OT, Vader could force choke people in completely different starships. Then, if you want, like, an "All-star Crew", Star Wars would have... -Thrawn -Vader -Boba Fett -Palpatine with his Battle Meditation - various Dark Jedi and Sith -and on and on and on Star Trek -Jean-Luc -Kirk -Spock -McCoy -Data -Worf -George Takei -Scotty Umm ya The Q end of story he snaps his figners the empire dissapears startrek wins GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunglare Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Star trek wins hands down. I don't why people keep saying star wars is more technology advanced when they don't even have a established technonlgy, nothing is explains how it works it just does that's why it's scifi fantasy. So what if a SD can level a planet from space, you don't think something from the federation can't? We can level the planet with current technology it wouldn't take anything for the future generation to it SW fans talk how great and powerful the weapons are yet there are so many instances were it shows that's not true expect the one were they blow up a asteroid. If anything blowing uP the asteroid is inconsistent with the rest of the SW universe. And not to mention SW tech is stuck. No more advancment. ST tech can adapt and overcome. Oh here's a little tid bit about ST phasers. The phasers on the USS Enterprise could stun entire city blocks full of people[2] destroy cities[3] and even destroy entire asteroids up to a given size, it is also said to be capable of destroying continents.[4] Yes, one federation starship can dessimate a world. Edited February 7, 2012 by Sunglare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WowWasBetter Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'd say the Imperial Fleet just due to the fact that the Empire covers most of their galaxy while Klingon space is one of many empires in just one quadrant of our galaxy. Galactic Empire in Star Wars would have a superior resource advantage. It took many of the major forces of the Alpha Quadrant to defeat the Dominion. Now the Dominion vs the Galactic Empire might be a more far comparison. I wouldn't bet on a resource advantage for the empire. Remember the minerals in SW have been mined constantly for over 25000 years. And star trek has replicators so they'll never run out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Stop lying and being dishonest then. Riker says E-D cannot destroy a 5km asteroid with the entire torpedo arsenal = True / False Jango Fett dropped bombs that shreded an entire asteroid field = True / False Therefore. Jango Fett can drop a bomb that does more damage than the entire torpedo compliment of the E-D. You want to whine that the movies are the only thing that are canon - fine, we have a canon movie straight from Gerorge Lucas that shows what a single bomb dropped by a bounty hunter can do. Star Trek ships take days to travel their own territory = True / False Star Wars ships take hours to travel across the galaxy = I.E AOTC Padme states the Jedi would have to cross half the galaxy to get to Geonosis In the space of a day... they get there. Hows that dialogue is always right working for you there, buddy ? Continue to be dishonest but these are facts which come straight from on-screen evidence. Whine, moan and try to cloud the issue all you like but Star Wars canon > You. ok what have I lied about? When did I ever even mention riker or how long it takes to fly or anything? The only one here that is lying is you claiming I said such things. All I have seen of Star Trek is the movies and maybe a handful of the episodes. Never seen any of the original series, Voyager or Enterprise. But ok you want to make me out to be some kind of trek guy go for it. I have seen every single Star Wars movie (including the Ewok movies and Christmas Special) as well as I have read a lot of the comics and books. My knowledge of the Star Wars universe is quite extensive. So sure Riker probably did say that I can't say for sure since I probablly haven't seen that episode but I will take your word since you know more about Star Trek then I do. I will also agree Star Trek ships are slower at light speed. Lets talk about Jangos weapons since that is your big thing your on now. Now you can't tell me what the Asteroids are made of and you can't tell me if the Star Trek Asteroid is made of the same material. I can prove that the Asteroids Jango destroys are weak and easly break apart. In that scene we also see Jango blasting asteroids apart with his blasters. They break apart just as easily as with the bombs he uses. We also see the same blasters hit Obi Wans ship. The blasters barely dent it. Now you could assume that Durasteel is incredibly strong and is much stronger then the asteroids. I will agree they are stronger then asteroids. But the question is how much stronger? But we also see a Durasteel AT-ST get smashed by 2 logs in RotJ with NO DAMAGE TO THE LOGS. Meanwhile the Durasteel AT ST is crushed the Durasteel is deformed and demolished. So yes Jango blew up asteroids with ease however the asteroids where made of a material that is WEAKER then WOOD. I did not say a single lie and I used on screen evidence. Can you honestly deny what I just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 People forget Star Wars is based off of galactic civilizations. Any Star Trek nation would lose simply because of the massive numerical advantage The Republic or the Empire would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 People forget Star Wars is based off of galactic civilizations. Any Star Trek nation would lose simply because of the massive numerical advantage The Republic or the Empire would have. tell that to the British and the Zulu armies. Or even just to the Rebels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) tell that to the British and the Zulu armies. Or even just to the Rebels. Plot mechanics were mostly in play there. Its hard to get a feel of what Star Wars tech is really capable of especially compared to Star Trek which put a whole lot more thought in that aspect in the series. Things you should consider is that the Galactic Senate had like thousands of planets being represented. The 4th through 6th movies were pretty limited in the special effects to really give us an idea of really how "epic" the space battles really were. Check out the 3rd movie for a more accurate representation as hundreds of capital ships duke it out in the beginning. You can even consider this game. In the old republic we have huge planetary conflicts happening where millions are dying and these are considered skirmishes between the republic and the empire. Tech wise the Star Destroyer's guns can obliterate stuff. They are a hell of a lot stronger then phasers on the Enterprise and Darth Malak even used such tech to smash Taris into oblivion. Star Wars has a better understanding of their galaxy and can travel through it faster giving them a massive advantage which is the logistical aspect of fighting wars. They could readily reinforce their forces and get supplies where they need to be quicker allowing them to keep the pressure. The defining powerhouse in the Star Wars universe. Their ground forces and special units team. They would simply board their ships and kill everyone inside and seize the vessel that way. Don't say they can't cause you would be talking about highly skilled special forces teams or Sith/Jedi here. Nobody in the Star Trek universe could go toe to toe with the BS force users bring to the table. So unless these Star Trek fleets are like the god like 300 Spartans from the movie 300 they are REALLY screwed. Edited February 7, 2012 by Kabloosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There is one thing with the Fleet comment by Han Solo "the entire star fleet can't destroy a planet" that can make the whole thing irrelevant is that it impossible to tell what he talking about, it could be the entire Imperial Navy (highly unlikely) or it could be a an imperial fleet (like that bunch of warships, IE the Deathstar = 50% of the warship there). For example on Earth there's the Pacific Fleet and the Atlantic Fleet and so on and theres no way that the Atlantic Fleet is the entire US Navy. This. Han's comment is far too vague and on the spot, the idea that one statement from one character whom might not even know what he is talking about nor have the proper evidence to state factually that this is so is more accurate than another character whom does know what he is talking about stating otherwise is a fallacy, canon simply does not work that way. Han first says it would take half the fleet(which fleet of which sector? It's canon that there were many fleets) and then states 1000 ships with more firepower than he has ever seen (okay which ships? and what firepower has he ever seen?) Point being, Han Solo is a smuggler and former Stormtrooper, this neither makes him an expert on these matters nor a reliable source, regardless of canon level, case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabloosh Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) You seem to forget that large ships in the Star Wars universe can launch fighters and bombers. I don't know why they don't have these in Star Trek. Modern warfare kind of showed that the battleship got out classed and out gunned by subs and carrier based aircraft. Throw that into the galactic stage we will most likely be using remotely operated carrier based spacecraft that launch nukes to take out capital ships or using more advanced levels of tech such as high powered lasers or anti-matter weaponry from these small, agile, stealthy, CHEAP, weapon platforms. Oh and in Star Wars they don't need to blow up planets. They seem to be able to field a large enough ground force they could just occupy it. Edited February 7, 2012 by Kabloosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danishgirl Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 ooh ooh! I wanna play! * put on nerdgirl hat* trek= future wars= distant past ( and for the added record sw has cloaking too but it's considered fairly useless) E.T was left on earth in the early 1980's His species got funding for their extra galactic trip from the galactic senate and techno-union during the height of the Clone Wars. time taken to leave their galaxy ( lets assume it's Andromeda ) cross space at X hyperspace multipliers then factor in the time it takes for the trek universe to come to what it is in our own galaxy ... ...carry the five...... Ewoks have evolved into Reapers Most epic post ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustrumRidcully Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Lets make this abundantly simple. Screw Saxton's numbers. Jango Fett drops a mine that shreds an entire asteroid field E-D cannot destroy one asteroid with it's entire torpedo compliment It takes weeks to months for Fed ships to cross their own territory It takes hours for Empire ships to travel across the galaxy It takes 6 months for the Empire to build the DSII The Federation takes just as long if not longer to build a single E-D The E-D - one of the most powerful ships for 7 years of Star Trek could barely manage to sustain a barrage against a Borg cube for miniutes in BOBW at point blank range 39 Federation ships were not capable of destroying a Borg Cube, not even scratching its surface. About 6 years later or so, a a similar amount of Federation ships destroyed a Borg Cube. A few years later, a single Federation ship had a weapon that instantly killed a Borg Cube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) This. Han's comment is far too vague and on the spot, the idea that one statement from one character whom might not even know what he is talking about nor have the proper evidence to state factually that this is so is more accurate than another character whom does know what he is talking about stating otherwise is a fallacy, canon simply does not work that way. Han first says it would take half the fleet(which fleet of which sector? It's canon that there were many fleets) and then states 1000 ships with more firepower than he has ever seen (okay which ships? and what firepower has he ever seen?) Point being, Han Solo is a smuggler and former Stormtrooper, this neither makes him an expert on these matters nor a reliable source, regardless of canon level, case closed. thats incorrect. It is a common misconsception people get two different quotes confused you have this one DODONNA: The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense. and here is Han's HAN: The entire starfleet couldn't destroy the whole planet. It'd take a thousand ships with more fire power than I've... It's pretty clear in both instnaces they are talking about the entire star fleet ie the empires entire naval force. Dodonna talking about how the Death Star has the fire power greater then half of the star fleet is important because he is describing how launching all their capital ships against it would be equal to just doing a straight fight against the Empire which they would obviously lose. Hans quote is important because there he is saying that the Empire doesn't have the power to destroy an entire planet. Edit: Also this is a movie. Information is given through Dialogue and Action so since we are in a universe that we don't understand the information that both Dodonna and Han give is 100% accurate. It would be incredibly poor writing if the main characters just fed you false information the whole time. It would be like the Force not actually existing and everything Obi Wan told you was a lie. Edited February 7, 2012 by jarjarloves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustrumRidcully Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I don't know why they don't have these in Star Trek. Modern warfare kind of showed that the battleship got out classed and out gunned by subs and carrier based aircraft. Throw that into the galactic stage we will most likely be using remotely operated carrier based spacecraft that launch nukes to take out capital ships or using more advanced levels of tech such as high powered lasers or anti-matter weaponry from these small, agile, stealthy, CHEAP, weapon platforms. Oh and in Star Wars they don't need to blow up planets. They seem to be able to field a large enough ground force they could just occupy it. Ultimately, it may just have been an aesthetic choice. But I think it has to with several factors: 1) Startrek weapons are alwas described as very precise - at least Phasers are. Phasers are constantly used to disable subsystems and the like. Startrek vessels don't need FLAKs - they fire a phaser and hit exactly the fighter they want to hit, and the Fighter or Shuttle doesn't really have the defensive capabilities to last against that for long. 2) Shields make smaller, fighter based weaponry ineffective. In addition, the smaller size of fighters does not allow them to yield heavy energy weapons. But - shields protect well against "kinetic" weapons, e.g. torpedoes/missiles. In the real world, we don't have shields, and so missiles are a highly effective weapon. But in Startrek, you first need to break through the enemies shields before you can really deal serious damage. And a Fighter won't be able to do that. Fighter Aircraft in the real world have incredible firepower for their size. That's not the case for Space Fighters in Startrek. 3) Aircraft Carriers are slow, and cannot operate well against land targets. But they have a long range and can operate independent for extended period of times. They carry fast-moving craft close to the desination, allowing that craft to deploy, make an attack, and retreat for refuel and rearming. In Startrek, a larger space vessel is just as fast as a shuttle or fighter. It can achieve high warp speeds (in fact, the smaller vessel may be significantly slower) and fast sublight speeds. It is also armed with weapons that can attack any target on a planetary surface. There is not even a need to deploy bombers. It can also (thanks to transporters) instantly transport troops to the ground. Fighters have a certain purpose in Startrek. You cannot deploy large space ships everywhere, and sometimes just having a small craft can do the job. But that job is probably more in the realm of patrols and transport. (The fighter used in DS9, the Peregrine, is actually designated as Courier vessel, not a combat vessel.) And of course - if you really have to throw in everything because it's about losing or winning the war - you'll even send those smaller ships. And if it's just cannon fodder, each phaser hit destroying a fighter is a phaser hit not damaging a Cruiser's shields... In the end - neither Star Wars nor Star Trek has any realistic concept of space combat, and I don't think it will be like "Ship of the Line" naval warfare nor 20th/21st century naval warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidacid Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Edit: Also this is a movie. Information is given through Dialogue and Action so since we are in a universe that we don't understand the information that both Dodonna and Han give is 100% accurate. It would be incredibly poor writing if the main characters just fed you false information the whole time. It would be like the Force not actually existing and everything Obi Wan told you was a lie. that's not actually how it works... characters are meant to appear semi-realistic meaning what they state could be anything from hyperbole to flat out incorrect due to their perspective or lack of knowledge... Han also says the force doesn't exist and the jedi religion and lightsabers are no match for a blaster... so that MUST be 100 percent correct because he said it right???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golarz Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Klingons - accuracy Imperials - not so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts