PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well, SW has A LOT of snub fighters. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 he then ASSUMES the asteroids are made of I believe iron or something there about. No he doesn't. The Empire Strikes Back novelization explicitly says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 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. And? So? Therefore? Irrelevant. 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. That's what Suspension of Disbelief is. Show me where I'm making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 No he doesn't. The Empire Strikes Back novelization explicitly says so. what page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 And? So? Therefore? Irrelevant. That's what Suspension of Disbelief is. See, this is why I pull, as you put it, an ad hominim argument and prefer to mock you directly. Because this has been your M.O. from day one. Any time someone makes a valid point that you cannot find a good argument against, you just handwave it as "irrelevant." In what way is it irrelevant that one source is based on the actual data used in creating the story, and the other is a post-production, guesstimated crapshoot by an unaffiliated guy with a PhD using special effects as inconsistent data samples as his scientific baseline? Especially because you're not utilizing similarly calculated data based upon Star Trek's special effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoneapp Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You could probably take down a Bird of pray with a blaster rifle and a Vac suit... lol but again apples and oranges That made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKolKappi Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Who cares The Imperium of Man would destroy both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustrumRidcully Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Well, SW has A LOT of snub fighters. Indeed it has. I dislike that Startrek Online introduced Carriers in the game. I think, in this area, Star Wars and Star Trek are just following different "philosophies". It seems to me the reason why Startrek doesn't have fighters is because they have a lot less of the advantages they have in Star Wars. In Star Wars, turbolasers and the like are not very precise - it is possible to dodge and weave around and easily escape shots. An ISD has 60 Turbolasers and yet a squadron of X-Wings for example can fight in its vicinity. A Galaxy-Class ship has ~12 Phaser Banks and it routinely makes precise attacks with them. While Shuttles are shown to make successul evasive maneuvers, they also take a lot of hits, so overall I think that for whatever reason, Startrek weaponry is described as very precise. So, a squadron of TIEs or X-Wings is easy pickings. That doesn't mean fighters are entirely irrelevant - you don't always fight cruisers, and you can't have cruisers everywhere. So it can be useful to load up some extra firepower with Shuttles and Fighters. But it's not like in Star Wars (or in Naval Warfare since the introduction of the first aircraft carriers) the backbone of your fighting capability. In what way is it irrelevant that one source is based on the actual data used in creating the story, and the other is a post-production, guesstimated crapshoot by an unaffiliated guy with a PhD using special effects as inconsistent data samples as his scientific baseline? Especially because you're not utilizing similarly calculated data based upon Star Trek's special effects? Indeed. The Tech Manuals may say one thing - but on the other hand, we see hand phasers disintegrating/vaporizing (whatever you want to call it) people and objects. We see the Enterprise D dig several kilometer deep holes into the ground (with high precison at the same time). We see a Romulan/Cardassian Fleet destroying a planetary crust. Relying on SFX is questionable, as SFX is just visuals, not explaining the realities behind it. Technical Manuals for TV Shows make numbers up out of thin air mostly. Hey, if we go by SFX, the Defiant can shrink and enlarge its size on a whim. Not sure how this would help against an Imperial Star Destroyer, but it's the only logical explanation if we use SFX as basis. Probably has something to do with Subspace Compression. I think there are certain "logistical" aspects that make the idea of SW vs ST interesting. For example - one side has warp engines that allow basically flying through space at FTL with no "hyperdimensional shortcuts". Star Wars has its hyperspace. That means you can theoretically detect a Startrek vessel at warp flying towards you - but it also cand etect you the entire time. I am actually not sure if Star Wars has FTL sensors or not. If they have, they could detect incoming (at least non-cloaked) Klingon vessels and not vice versa. But if they don't, the Klingon ships could fire their photon torpedoes at warp speeds at them. At the same time - the Empire would never know what exactly to expect when they reach their destination. The Klingons may have repositioned their fleet, preparing a trap, retreating. Transports are also interesting - if ISD shields protect, that's good for them in space combat (until the shields break down, but that'S never good for anyone), but it will create interesting ground combat scenarios. Imagine some freight transporter beaming away your AT STs (don't think they have shields), or Klingons beaming inside your planetary bases. On the other hand - an AT-ST or AT-AT would hardly be harmed by a Bat'Leth and probably can withstand some disruptor fire. Stormtroopers would certainly be cannon fodder, but Sith or Jedi would be interesting (and we'd have to decide whether Light Sabers destroy Bat'Leths on contact or not. I'd say they probably do, but this may not stop our hero KLingon, but certainly the average one.). But of course, any Startrek vs Star Wars scenario ends exactly how the author wants it to end. Typically, we'd probably want the good guys to win, so if it's Empire vs Klingons, probably the Klingons (at great cost, of course). If it's Rogue Squadron vs Enterprise E, it would probably be both, as in the end they figure out they are both the good guys and unite against the real enemy (Empire, Q, whatever). Edited February 2, 2012 by MustrumRidcully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintagel Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'd have to go with the imps, simply due to the fact that star trek ship systems seem to go offline if someone happens to sneeze next to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsdad Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) What you have to understand is that an ISD was designed for one purpose; concentrating tremendous amounts of energy into small areas of very large things. ISD doesn't need to hit snub fighters because it belches thousands of its own to protect itself. The Imperial-class SD focuses its turbolaser batteries (which aren't lasers at all) by pivoting in space and facing the "top" towards its target. This is how it is designed to not only destroy other capital ships, but its primary use is orbital bombardment of a planet. It's interesting that you bring up the hyper-space vs warp distinction. The Imperial Fleet can keep communication with each other in hyper-space because of the holonet. I'm not certain of their ability to detect unfriendly vessels while in hyper-space, though. I know Luke and Jacen were able to project their Force awareness into hyper-space at times. Which leads me to this. The "physics" behind the Death Star's primary weapon placed the core of its target into hyper-space very briefly. It's how they are able to destroy planets; by letting their own gravity well destroy them. Tough to keep up moral when your planets are being destroyed. Edited February 2, 2012 by Valsdad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerzhul Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) 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 I stealing this for my sig it that's ok ..........................Dammit it's too long! Edited February 2, 2012 by Nerzhul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustrumRidcully Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Tough to keep up moral when your planets are being destroyed. Nah, better they get destroyed than assimilated! But the Death Star doesn't seem to be a very good weapon, really. We cannot willfully ignore their construction flaws - I mean, we could theorize that it would be possible to build a Death Star without a ventilation shaft and with shields to protect from beaming, but... Well, where do we stop? Startrek has time travel with almost trivial matters (Fly at warp around the sun - a 23rd century Bird of Prey could pull that off, and bring back two whales!), then there is Soran's Supernova weapon. How about we compare Starwars Online to Startrek Online! The Empire definitely wins over the Klingon Defense Force there. 4 classes, 50 levels full of missions, against 25 (or 35?) levels not full of missions? But the Klingon Defense Force vs the Empire Fleet - the Empire players only have the choice between 4 ships. The KDF has a far bigger fleet! Edited February 2, 2012 by MustrumRidcully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (snip) Well put. This has been my point: it's silly to cite made-up numbers in a debate like this. This isn't an argument you can "win" using a bunch of arbitrary data. You can argue why one tech is better than the other, but once you start talking gigawatts of power and Gs of acceleration, you've lost the plot, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Here's something the Klingons got going for them: SUPER HUGE BIRDS OF PREY! Don't believe me? Special effects don't lie. Now compare to the size of the Enterprise. Moordy-boy, can you get ol' Doc Germanian to drum up some numbers on the power output of a Bird of Prey that's comparably twice the size of the Enterprise? *snicker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) In what way is it irrelevant that one source is based on the actual data used in creating the story, and the other is a post-production, guesstimated crapshoot by an unaffiliated guy with a PhD using special effects as inconsistent data samples as his scientific baseline? Why is using special effects rendered to extrapolate data wrong? He is affiliated with Lucasfilms, as soon as LFL licenses and hires him to write the book he becomes affiliated.Especially because you're not utilizing similarly calculated data based upon Star Trek's special effects? Except we do. In 'Pegasus' Riker states it would take the Galaxy-class E-D's entire photon torpedo payload to destroy a 5km asteroid, which works out to between 25 Megatons total if it's hard granite and 600MT if it's nickel-iron, which works out to a photon torpedo being between 1kT and 3MT. This coincides with 'Relics' in which the E-D is pulled in close to a class-G star with less than 45% the luminosity of Sol (given there is water and vegetation inside the Dyson Sphere), at 150,000km from the surface of the star the power intensity would be 25-30MW/m^2. At 610m long and 130m tall the surface area (if it were a solid rectangle) would be 78,000m^2, the shield being an ellipsoid bubble would bump this up to 100,000m^2. Multiply 1E5m^2 by 30MW/m^2 works out to 3TW. At about 25% strength the shields were able to withstand this barrage for about three hours, which would give us a total shield strength of 325000MJ, a little under 31MT. Which would put the average Trek shield able to take about ten of their own photorps, which is about what we see in the show. Edited February 2, 2012 by DarthMoord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Why is using special effects rendered to extrapolate data wrong? He is affiliated with Lucasfilms, as soon as LFL licenses and hires him to write the book he becomes affiliated. Except you made the mistake of citing his website, not his two ICS publications. His website is non-canon, and the material created therein is non-canon, yet you cite it as fact. Not that his affiliation even remotely detracts from my point that the numbers are idiotically inflated based on special effects. Except we do. In 'Pegasus' Riker states it would take the Galaxy-class E-D's entire photon torpedo payload to destroy a 5km asteroid, which works out to between 25 Megatons total if it's hard granite and 600MT if it's nickel-iron, which works out to a photon torpedo being between 1kT and 3MT. This coincides with 'Relics' in which the E-D is pulled in close to a class-G star with less than 45% the luminosity of Sol (given there is water and vegetation inside the Dyson Sphere), at 150,000km from the surface of the star the power intensity would be 25-30MW/m^2. At 610m long and 130m tall the surface area (if it were a solid rectangle) would be 78,000m^2, the shield being an ellipsoid bubble would bump this up to 100,000m^2. Multiply 1E5m^2 by 30MW/m^2 works out to 3TW. At about 25% strength the shields were able to withstand this barrage for about three hours, which would give us a total shield strength of 325000MJ, a little under 31MT. Which would put the average Trek shield able to take about ten of their own photorps, which is about what we see in the show. Ah, but you see, your asteroid argument, and all of your other arguments for that matter, are rendered completely invalid by what I have sitting in front of me right now: The Empire Strikes Back novelization. I took the time to reread every scene that takes place in the asteroid field, and nowhere does it mention the mineral content of the asteroids. In other words, when you fail to have a valid counterargument, you just start making crap up. As for Riker's statement, can you confirm the mineral content of those asteroids? Or do you claim granite and nickel-iron are the only asteroid types in the universe? As for the Dyson Sphere comparison, and your guesstimate on its luminosity: what kind of shielding did the inside of the Dyson sphere have? What planet did those plants come from? Is their composition the same as Earth plants, or are you just assuming they are? And maybe I'm wrong: maybe Trek's effects are consistent with what's written. So, based upon that, can you please calculate the power output of the extremely large Klingon Birds-of-Prey I posted images of? After all, this is a KDF vs Imperial debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizil Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I used to think I was a nerd, but this thread has forever disabused me of that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No he doesn't. The Empire Strikes Back novelization explicitly says so. still waiting for you to tell me what page this is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I used to think I was a nerd, but this thread has forever disabused me of that notion. the moment i realized I was a nerd was when I was watching Star Trek Nemesis in the theaters (believe it or not that wasn't what made me think I was a nerd) at the end during Data's funeral Riker says "When I first met him he was trying to whistle a song, I can't remember what it was" Right there I yelled out *** IT WAS POP GOES THE WEASEL.. My girlfriend looked at me and I realized I shouldn't know that. More recently while playing SWTOR I came across a guy named "E-Choota" instally I laughed because I remembered thats what the protocol droid says to C-3PO in the theaters and then I felt sad again. yeah SW vs ST debates are pretty much the bottom. The only thing worse is Larping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I used to think I was a nerd, but this thread has forever disabused me of that notion. I formally came out of the closet about a year after High School. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keihryon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I don't know, considering that the largest Trek vessel can fit in the main hangar of an Impstar II, I would have to put money on the Imps winning that fight. I don't think the...Nah'gar? the largest KDF battleship, is much larger than the Tantive IV...so, yeah. I think the Borg cubes are the largest....ships, in the ST universe and I don't think even they are as large as a Victory class destroyer. Mass does matter, the larger the ship the stronger the hull, amount of firepower.. Which is why the Space Marines and their armada would smack both realms around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I don't know, considering that the largest Trek vessel can fit in the main hangar of an Impstar II, I would have to put money on the Imps winning that fight. I don't think the...Nah'gar? the largest KDF battleship, is much larger than the Tantive IV...so, yeah. I think the Borg cubes are the largest....ships, in the ST universe and I don't think even they are as large as a Victory class destroyer. Mass does matter, the larger the ship the stronger the hull, amount of firepower.. Which is why the Space Marines and their armada would smack both realms around. You're correct that the Imperial Star Destroyer is much larger than even the biggest Starfleet vessel (except the Enterprise J, but that's a few hundred years in the future), but your size comparisons are a bit off. And a Borg Cube is still effing huge by comparison: http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png Edited February 3, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I don't know, considering that the largest Trek vessel can fit in the main hangar of an Impstar II, I would have to put money on the Imps winning that fight. I don't think the...Nah'gar? the largest KDF battleship, is much larger than the Tantive IV...so, yeah. I think the Borg cubes are the largest....ships, in the ST universe and I don't think even they are as large as a Victory class destroyer. Mass does matter, the larger the ship the stronger the hull, amount of firepower.. Which is why the Space Marines and their armada would smack both realms around. Size matters not. Plus we have seen a SSD get completely disabled by having 1 A-wing crash into the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepsMcJuggs Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Size matters not. Plus we have seen a SSD get completely disabled by having 1 A-wing crash into the bridge. Or a Death Star get blown up by an X-Wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keihryon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 You're correct that the Imperial Star Destroyer is much larger than even the biggest Starfleet vessel (except the Enterprise J, but that's a few hundred years in the future), but your size comparisons are a bit off. And a Borg Cube is still effing huge by comparison: http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png Huh, they just seem smaller I guess. Same for the babylon ships, I would never have thought a b5 cruiser was almost the size of an Impstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts