Rayla_Felana Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) I'm thinking because of shields and stealth...mostly stealth. It still sounds ridiculously unbalanced, just another roflstomp thread imo. Edited February 1, 2012 by Rayla_Felana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You don't need to kill everyone on a ship to take control of it. And you can transport through shields in certain situations, with the right information or if you find a thin part in the shielding. And the Red Guard and that are awesome, given, but a Klingon does train in martial combat almost from the point of birth, they're going to be as well trained as anyone in melee combat, especially considering they can live to be 200 years old and still be generally combat effective at that age. They're also incredibly hard to kill due to all their back up organs. They even have a backup nervous system. You could ram a light saber through a Klingon's chest and he's still going. Actually, thanks to the cauterization, a LS through most Klingon body parts wouldn't do much. We also don't know if they could be force resistant. Considering they're EVERYTHING ELSE resistant, wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) You don't need to kill everyone on a ship to take control of it. And you can transport through shields in certain situations, with the right information or if you find a thin part in the shielding. And the Red Guard and that are awesome, given, but a Klingon does train in martial combat almost from the point of birth, they're going to be as well trained as anyone in melee combat, especially considering they can live to be 200 years old and still be generally combat effective at that age. They're also incredibly hard to kill due to all their back up organs. They even have a backup nervous system. You could ram a light saber through a Klingon's chest and he's still going. Actually, thanks to the cauterization, a LS through most Klingon body parts wouldn't do much. We also don't know if they could be force resistant. Considering they're EVERYTHING ELSE resistant, wouldn't surprise me. On the Emperor's personal flagship I imagine that would be the case, they will be the best of the best, also, I am not sure how big the walkways, etc.. are on the Eclipse as they aren't very well described, but I am sure those one hundred AT-ATs would come in handy some how. Fair enough, I am not very savvy when it comes to Star trek. You realise you've nearly described the Red Guard to a T as well? they were the best Mandalorians in the galaxy (well apart from Fett, etc.) and thanks to Ms. Traviss (sense the sarcasm?) the Mandalorians are so OP it's not even funny now, from lightsaber resistant armor to immune to the force, etc...etc... Edited February 1, 2012 by Rayla_Felana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lugtor Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The Eclipse is what i hate about so many of the EU writers. The Eclipse is basicly the Mary Sue of Star Ships. That every second author implements his own Mary Sue doesnt make it any better... And because the Star Wars EU is full of such things, Star Trek has no chance, because they are based on "realism" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yfelsung Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 On the Emperor's personal flagship I imagine that would be the case, they will be the best of the best, also, I am not sure how big the walkways, etc.. are on the Eclipse as they aren't very well described, but I am sure those one hundred AT-ATs would come in handy some how. Fair enough, I am not very savvy when it comes to Star trek. You realise you've nearly described the Red Guard to a T as well? they were the best Mandalorians in the galaxy (well apart from Fett, etc.) and thanks to Ms. Traviss (sense the sarcasm?) the Mandalorians are so OP it's not even funny now, from lightsaber resistant armor to immune to the force, etc...etc... Mandalorians are definitely bad ***, all I'm saying is that Klingons are about equal with Mandalorians for skill. They're both warrior people who define their entire existence based on combat. I don't think the fight would be one sided one way or the other. It wouldn't be like the slaughterfest that would occur if a good Waaaagh of Orkz ended up on the Empire's door step (Either Empire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyltran Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You don't need to kill everyone on a ship to take control of it. And you can transport through shields in certain situations, with the right information or if you find a thin part in the shielding. And the Red Guard and that are awesome, given, but a Klingon does train in martial combat almost from the point of birth, they're going to be as well trained as anyone in melee combat, especially considering they can live to be 200 years old and still be generally combat effective at that age. They're also incredibly hard to kill due to all their back up organs. They even have a backup nervous system. You could ram a light saber through a Klingon's chest and he's still going. Actually, thanks to the cauterization, a LS through most Klingon body parts wouldn't do much. We also don't know if they could be force resistant. Considering they're EVERYTHING ELSE resistant, wouldn't surprise me. Jedi aren't powerful because of the amount of training they have. They're powerful because of the force. A Jedi has powers. They can do incredible things. Especially when they're of a higher tier. On top of this the Jedi can face off against each other because they foresee many scenario's in the duel. Some they win some they lose. Both Jedi and Sith see these options and both fight to push one to a conclusion. The ability to predict what an opponent will do is massive. If you're a swordsman and you're fighting someone equally trained as you but you have the edge of predicting what they're going to do you're going to win very easily. Throw in the other powers in the mix and you can't really consider Klingons as deadly as Jedi. Klingons would just be shot by a blaster. Jedi are able to deflect blaster bolts due to their use of the force. Not their training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Having a Star Trek vs Star Wars discussion is like having a Anything Else vs Warhammer 40K discussion. Star trek is too rooted in realism to be able to fight the silliness in Star Wars numbers. In Star Wars the Empire could ram enough Star Destroyers down at the Klingons that they would run out of power or ammo before the Empire ran out of ships. Pretty much. I laugh whenever DarthMoord starts number-crunching why Star Wars wins over Star Trek. Star Trek numbers cited in tech manuals, while far from strictly adhered to, were designed to standardize the tech you see in the various series. Moord's vaunted CCS guides were a bunch of purely made up numbers by Star Wars fanboys just for the sake of putting numbers on paper. Canonicity doesn't make them any less silly. Edited February 1, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWidowmaker Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 i dont think klingons can survive being force pushed down a well that is roughly 30 stories high or being eloectrocuted with force lightning, and if you have that many Imperial Star Destroyers, cloak or not, whatever planet they assault will be reduced to space dust anyway then there are the 10s or thousands of smaller fighters that the Imps or Republic would have.... its really a no contest i would take the Death Star over a Borg cube as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Those figures say nothing about actual speed or acceleration. So a Venator's engines produce 3 times the force of a galaxy class, but the actual acceleration also depends on the mass of the ship, and if I am not mistaken a Venator is considerably more massive than a galaxy-class. That's not how that works. Acceleration in a zero-g environment is thrust/weight. The Venator is putting out three thousand times it's own weight in thrust versus the Galaxy which only puts out a thousand times it's own weight, following the square cube law the Venator is generating vastly more thrust than a Galaxy could imagine. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/ISD-72x_deflector_shield_generator_dome And in X-Wing, etc. games, those globes are the Star Destroyers' shield generators. Edit: Then again http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sensor_globe Well, it's a weird matter I guess. Perhaps they were the main shield generators in games, exactly because they were an easy target. :/ This isn't even up for argument, that's exactly what happened. I would think as a gamer you'd understand game balance does not always sync up with what we get. For example in TOR the Sith Warrior and the Jedi Knight are the prodigal sons of both their factions by the end of their story, but for gameplay purposes they're still balanced against the other classes, if this were simply a novel they would run rampant over everybody else. Likewise if an Imperator actually worked like we see elsewhere, the squadrons you're a part of in the X-Wing would have to be made up of Nebula-class Frigates and not X-Wings. Whenever a modern Star Trek star ship has run into a culture that uses lasers they've usually remarked how lasers are literally incapable of damaging their shield or hull. Since Star Wars ships use lasers, I think they're going to have a problem. Well that's not true either. Star Wars 'lasers' act nothing like lasers. Secondly that's a no-limits fallacy. And thirdly, you might want to explain why borg cutting 'lasers' are a threat to Federation ships then. Not necessarily. They used a mining laser to destroy a planet in Star Trek (well, a mining laser and some red matter). A planet is rock, and laser goes through rock, but a star ship has shielding and materials that could very well make it practically immune to laser fire. It's not necessarily the size as much as the material and tech. We're discussing TOS/TNG/Voy/DS9 canon not the reboot canon. The whole red matter crap doesn't exist outside of it, and we have no idea how quickly they can produce it. And the Red Guard and that are awesome, given, but a Klingon does train in martial combat almost from the point of birth, they're going to be as well trained as anyone in melee combat, especially considering they can live to be 200 years old and still be generally combat effective at that age. They must have some ****** training because I remember a 5ft-nothing 100-ish pound woman beating Klingon *** in hand-to-hand combat in DS9. Though, it shouldn't be too surprising since every single time we see the Klingons fighting a war on the ground the sum total of their tactical brilliance is a mass charge over open ground with bat'leths drawn. You could ram a light saber through a Klingon's chest and he's still going. Actually, thanks to the cauterization, a LS through most Klingon body parts wouldn't do much. Klingon resistance isn't that great. Again, noting that Kira can take down multiple Klingons in short order with her bare hands and nothing she did was ever too exceptional. Meanwhile on the other side we have Stormtroopers with blasters that blow meter wide chunks out of concrete, Imperial Guard with weaponize force pikes that on stun can drop a full grown Wookiee in half a second and on kill can sunder starship bulkheads or pulp an organic being simply with a touch (and incidentally has far better reach than a bat'leth), and both have armor that laughs off a bat'leth blade with ease. Then there's the question of how the Klingons can get the shields down to transport in the first place. I've already demonstrated that you could set a single Acclamator up against a million standard Trek ships and it will just laugh as the phasers and photorps are deflected with ease. And because the Star Wars EU is full of such things, Star Trek has no chance, because they are based on "realism" Not even. Star Trek has humans cross-breeding with aliens, gravity in a starship that doesn't rotate, and faster-than-light travel according to science takes infinite energy so that's right out. Don't kid yourself, Star Trek is no more realistic that Star Wars, they just hide it behind meaningless technobabble. Edited February 1, 2012 by DarthMoord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Moord's vaunted CCS guides were a bunch of purely made up numbers by Star Wars fanboys just for the sake of putting numbers on paper. So you're accusing Dr Curtis Saxton of making up the numbers? In point of dact, before Dr Saxton put out the numbers in the ICS series Wars' calculations still stomped Trek but were far more conservative. All of his calculations are free to find online, you're welcome to disprove them if you can. Rather than whine like a butthurt baby, because your favorite fictional series would get roflstomped by mine. You don't see me whining because the Iain M. Banks' The Culture would dance all over Star Wars like the hottest nightclub dance floor in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 this argument is old and pointless... but as far as it goes (and discounting deus ex machina which unfortunately seems to be the only real weapon in the ST universe that ever works) SW ships would be untouchable ... if you look at any of the technical manuals released SW ship defense and weapon output is always a few orders of magnitude higher than ST ships... makes sense tho since in SW they have been a galactic level civilization for much longer... hell in ST it was suppose to take them 75 years to travel 40,000 light years but in SW ~40,000 light years (the distance from Tatooine to alderaan) is an 8 hour trip.. then we have the sheer number of ships problem... the republic, the empire or the sith all have hundreds of thousands to millions of of large capitol ships compared to the the federations or klingons few hundred... any SW civilization could just ram every klingon ship with 50 of their own and still not lose a noticeable fraction of their fleets according to the tech manuals Enterprise-D main phaser output 3.6 GW (5.1 MW per emitter, 200 emitters in the main phaser array, 2 full-sized saucer arrays and 3 smaller roughly half-size arrays on the stardrive section) Shield heat dissipation 3311 GW peak (473 GW per generator x 7 generators Slave 1 Main guns: 64000 GW (2 kilotons per shot, 480 rpm firing rate onscreen in AOTC for time-averaged power output rather than peak output) Shield heat dissipation 2 billion GW peak so the tiny slave 1 has around 18000 times the destructive power and 600000 times the defensive shielding... and since the enterprise regularly stands and fights against Kilingon ships we can assume they are on par... hell even if the Klingon ships are 100x better they would still be squashed like a bug by a fighter from SW... You could probably take down a Bird of pray with a blaster rifle and a Vac suit... lol but again apples and oranges yeah the thing is the Star Trek tech manuals aren't canon only things in the tv shows and movies are. In an episode of TNG data mentioned the Enterprises reactor could produce something like 6 billion gigawatts which is far more powerfull then anything in Star Wars. Star Wars gets really tricky with their canon. I believe the most current version states that things in tech manuals are not canon. They also have the rule that things said in the movies take presidence over anything else. So based on whats in the movies weapon wise they are pretty evenly matched.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) So you're accusing Dr Curtis Saxton of making up the numbers? In point of dact, before Dr Saxton put out the numbers in the ICS series Wars' calculations still stomped Trek but were far more conservative. All of his calculations are free to find online, you're welcome to disprove them if you can. Rather than whine like a butthurt baby, because your favorite fictional series would get roflstomped by mine. You don't see me whining because the Iain M. Banks' The Culture would dance all over Star Wars like the hottest nightclub dance floor in LA. Hahaha...I couldn't care less how much time Dr Saxton wasted attaching real-world numbers to special effects that didn't even remotely factor in said numbers during their creation. I also don't care who wins in this debate, because I like both series. I also don't recall saying anything about getting aggravated or frustrated, which is what "butthurt" implies. If I recall, I said I laugh at you when you start arguing whose made-up numbers are better, because you are a very silly man who feels an inane desire to jump into these debates every time and start citing your pretend numbers (like I said in my first post: I think people make these threads just to give you something to argue about). It doesn't matter how much time and effort Saxton put into his number-crunching, because the fundamental difference is the Star Trek numbers were created as part of an internal continuity to allow consistency in the tech. Star Wars, as fantasy, not sci-fi, had no documented numbers that were ever used anywhere in their production. They were made up afterward by guys like Saxton with so little to do that they calculate the size of ISDs based on the size of the Millennium Falcon miniature they slapped on it in ESB. Edited February 1, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 In an episode of TNG data mentioned the Enterprises reactor could produce something like 6 billion gigawatts which is far more powerfull then anything in Star Wars.Complete Cross Section, p.63, Republic Assault Ship main reactor peak output 2x10^23watts 10^23=100000000000000000000000 or 100 sextillion, multiply by 2 to get 200 sextillion 1 GW=1000000000 or 1 billion Watts 200 sextillion/1billion=200000000000000 or 200 trillion Gigawatts. Even if you were right, and I'm not seeing an episode named or a quotation given to validate what you're saying, Star Wars generates three orders of magnitude higher energy output. A Venator has vastly greater power than that and an ISD still even more. Star Wars gets really tricky with their canon. I believe the most current version states that things in tech manuals are not canon. You're wrong. Star Wars canon is anything not explicitly and irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon is canon. They also have the rule that things said in the movies take presidence over anything else. No, only explicit things. Give precedence, for example when someone in the EU says the Executor is only 12km long that's explicitly contradicted by the scaling of the mile-long ISDs around it. So based on whats in the movies weapon wise they are pretty evenly matched.. You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 WAAAH WAAAH, I can;t make a compelling argument WAAAH! I'm sorry that you can't make a cogent argument, it's not my fault you have to make up blatant ad hominem attacks because you can't validate your own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry that you can't make a cogent argument, it's not my fault you have to make up blatant ad hominem attacks because you can't validate your own opinion. Nice try, buddy. Here's your cogent argument. The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual you keep referring to is based on this, whose introduction states The Star Trek Writers' Technical Manual was developed to provide a handy reference for the detailed technological background that our writers sometimes need, and is offered as a supplement to the Writer'/Directors' Guide. It is NOT required reading-relatively few of our scripts use more than a tiny amount of this material. Still, some story points do hinge on this stuff, and Star Trek has always prided itself on scientific accuracy and internal consistency – hence this document. Thus, Star Trek's numbers were actually considered during the creation of their stories and plotlines. Then there's Curtis Saxton, who published his first article in 1995 on the SSD, about sixteen years after its creation, using extrapolations from photographs and other special effects that, as I said, did not even remotely factor in his numbers during their original inception. In other words, these are fundamentally different numbers, because the Trek ones were actually factored into the tech, whereas Saxton is trying to treat pretty flashy things on the screen as hard data. Show me where I'm making stuff up. Edited February 1, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonSM Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Star Trek is interesting and entertaining. Star Wars changed the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seductivpancakes Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Verbal Kombat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Verbal Kombat! You need more echo in your text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 about to leave work so I will just say this and write more on the canon later. Saxtons numbers are wrong. They are based around the scene from Empire where the SDs are blasting the asteroids. He comes to the conclusion that a weapon would need to have X amount of firepower to cause the asteroids to completely vaporize. he then ASSUMES the asteroids are made of I believe iron or something there about. However his assumptions are wrong because I can prove that it is not made of any known material. The explosion that occurs when the SD's turbo lasers hit the asteroid is THE SAME explosion that occurs when the asteroid hits the BRIDGE of the Star Destroyer AND COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE BRIDGE. Therefore the explosion that we see is not caused directly by the Turbo laser but instead by the asteroid itself. Think of it like this. If I shoot a gun into a barrel of TNT and it explodes you might assume that the bullet is the source of the explosion and every bullet i fire no matter what it hits would cause the same explosion. Ignoring the fact that it was the barrel of TNT was the source of the explosion. We have had long discussions about this in my Physics class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FenrirFangs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Imperial Fleet would win... Just by looking at the one currently in game you can see the numbers the Imperials dish out. There is no way the Klingons could survive such an onslaught when they're dealing with hundreds of planets waging war against their one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 about to leave work so I will just say this and write more on the canon later. Saxtons numbers are wrong. They are based around the scene from Empire where the SDs are blasting the asteroids. He comes to the conclusion that a weapon would need to have X amount of firepower to cause the asteroids to completely vaporize. he then ASSUMES the asteroids are made of I believe iron or something there about. However his assumptions are wrong because I can prove that it is not made of any known material. The explosion that occurs when the SD's turbo lasers hit the asteroid is THE SAME explosion that occurs when the asteroid hits the BRIDGE of the Star Destroyer AND COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE BRIDGE. Therefore the explosion that we see is not caused directly by the Turbo laser but instead by the asteroid itself. Think of it like this. If I shoot a gun into a barrel of TNT and it explodes you might assume that the bullet is the source of the explosion and every bullet i fire no matter what it hits would cause the same explosion. Ignoring the fact that it was the barrel of TNT was the source of the explosion. We have had long discussions about this in my Physics class. Good show, old chap! I'd love to see Saxton's treatise on the existence of space potatoes in the aforementioned asteroid field, or the kind of communications range one gets from a reappropriated women's razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsdad Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) true, but there 1 man attack vessels, and wont be able to fight large ships that are hidden, and can cloak in and out of cambat. The only reason Trek would get violated hard is because of their lack of snub fighters. This is known. Edit: Not to mention: *force persuade* ...you want to fly into that star... I want to fly into that star. Edited February 1, 2012 by Valsdad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The only reason Trek would get violated hard is because of their lack of snub fighters. This is known. Edit: Not to mention: *force persuade* ...you want to fly into that star... I want to fly into that star. Can't argue with the Force factor, but there are fighters in Trek. They're just not seen very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsdad Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well, SW has A LOT of snub fighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IroquoisPliskin Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) With the Physics of Star Trek Klingon with the physics of Star Wars the Imperial fleet. Star Trek is interesting and entertaining. Star Wars changed the world. I am guessing the Civil rights movement wasn't that big of a deal? Edited February 1, 2012 by IroquoisPliskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts