Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

1,014 in very spacious private quarters. In the alternate Klingon War timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Enterprise D is configured to transport up to 6,000 troops.

Shatner has a good point. Star Wars became a slave to their special affects. The stories and acting got weaker and weaker. Whereas Star Trek had a lot more compelling stories.

I'd say Kirk just photoned the warp nacelles off the Carrie Fisher.

Enterprise to Fisher, you are ordered to surrender your vessel, please respond.

Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead. I mean this guy can build a goddamn cannon out of dirt and rocks and stuff. You never see scruffy little Luke down in the dirt building a light saber out of bantha shiat.

This man defeated Kahn and then as a follow up to that, took issue with God and defeated him too. Nobody messes with James T. Kirk.

ActionJoe: BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Trolling

I have no idea what you mean by that. But allow me to add:

Tebow > Janeway > Picard

phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

imfallen_angel: Eshkar: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

::cough:: Virgin ::cough::

PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.

meh... the SDF-1 would take both down in a single shot from across a solar system.

And as for as Tie fighters sent ahead, VF-01 fighters would use them for target practice.



Blah blah blah blah -

Mr. Worf, Quantum torpedoes, fire.

Empire obliterated, roll credits. Luke and friends can go get wasted on Romulan Ale.

Fano: Luke did stuff a bone in the rancor's mouth. . ..

A new realm of slashfic possibilities arise. . ..

Federation technology is superior to Imperial technology in all things except in power of turbo lasers. (the amount of energy needed to destroy an earth sized planet the way Alderan is destroyed is probably more than lifetime total energy output of the sun over it's 4-5 billion year lifespan, too bad they don't use it better) It is easy to assume that the edge in energy weapons would be enough for the Empire to win, but that is not the case.

Federation starships can fight at higher speeds while Empire ships are limited to sub-light during combat. Moving at Warp speeds, federation starships would be untouchable by anything the Empire could put out there. Federation torpedos can also move at warp speeds and be fired at warp speeds. It would be shooting Empire fish in a barrel. Granted, this is not how any of the Star Trek video games display combat, but it is done in the shows enough and it would be the tactics they would use against the Empire.

Federation starships are more maneuverable than Empire ships. Especially when warp speeds are considered. Starships could manuever to blind spots behind those large engines and empty the phaser banks then bolt away faster than the lasers being shot at them. Think "Picard Manuver".

If you are thinking about a total war between the Empire and the Federation, of course the Empire would win. They have the resources of almost an entire galaxy while the Federation would barely have 1/8th of that. Add to that the willingness to destroy entire planets and commit mass genocide, things the Federation would never do, and the Empire would break their will to fight. The Empire could shovel massive amounts of ships and clones and completely overwhelm the limited resources of the Federation. Just like the Allies did to the Axis in WWII.

Eshkar: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

... starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

::cough:: Virgin ::cough::


Close. Science fiction writer.

Drank Malk: 2. Agreed, Star Destroyer lazers can destroy SMALL asteroids, but are on a twenty-five minute cooldown. Star Trek Lasers can fire continuously.


Making stuff up in a nerd thread just to win doesn't make you cool.

What? No Han Solo vs. Malcolm Reynolds in a bar fight/arm wrestle arguments?

/my money is on Mal
//on the other hand the Millennium Falcon has guns

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: Close. Science fiction writer.

Like I'd buy some shiat from an unknown who calls me a cheap bastard just for looking. Way to advertise, virgin.

/No sale for you.

BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]

He still looks 20 years younger than he is. If you want to see what he'd look like if he seriously hit the gym, watch the first Star Trek movie with the pastel pajama uniforms, when he was 48 and trying to look 10 years younger, in full comeback mode.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

The main phaser arrays of the Galaxy-class each consisted of 200 phaser emitter segments, each segment supplying 5.1 megawatts, total 1.02 gigawatts of phased energy output.

Okay, that's good. But this is better:

Each photo torpedo contains 1.5kg of anti-matter, so the total mass for the E=mc² equation is 3kg. During a photo torpedo detonation, the energy released is 64.5 megatons of TNT.

Ouch. Can you imagine that going off in the enclosed space of a Star Destroyer after being beamed in by a Starfleet ship? It would make the Hindenberg disaster look like a birthday candle. The Star Destroyer would cease to exist. Nothing would be able to remain intact short of a Death Star.

Galaxy-class ships can fire 10 torpedoes at once, aside from just beaming them in, with a range eight times or so the distance from the Earth to the Moon.


And the space-fighter idea, of battleships versus aircraft carriers, is nonsense. On Earth, ships and aircraft operated in two different mediums. In space, both ships and fighters operate in the same medium. Fighters are not "faster" than ships. Acceleration is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio or the biological limits of the crew, and total delta-v by the amount of fuel carried. Ships can carry more gravity compensators and more fuel. So not only can they potentially accelerate faster, they can also reach higher speeds. I'll give fighters the advantage that they can rotate much faster than a ship, and thus can change their thrust vector much faster.

Fighters also can't turn and bank in space. They can vector... the same as the ships can. The Galaxy-glass ships can achieve acceleration of over 1,000 g's. Not bad for a four-million-ton ship.

Also, I'll note that the Starfleet ships can jump in and out of warp at will, enabling them to terminate the engagement at will, or maneuver to stay out of the range of Imperial ships, or to attack from unexpected directions.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

What if the water was taken out of them and the remaining minerals shaped into something resembling crystals?

Nem Wan: BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]

He still looks 20 years younger than he is. If you want to see what he'd look like if he seriously hit the gym, watch the first Star Trek movie with the pastel pajama uniforms, when he was 48 and trying to look 10 years younger, in full comeback mode.



/seen it

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy:

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

Her crew was 1014. The ship could crew over 3000 and transport even more according to its designer, Andy Probert.
But they could never afford that many extras, hence the 1014 number.

/Voyager beaming the torpedo onto the Borg Scout was pretty cool.

Looking strictly at power generation/distribution it looks something like...

ISD > Cylon Basestar > NCC 1701D > BSG > NCC 1701

Weapons' power output is similar, with BSG closing in on NCC 1701D due to it using a LOT of fighter craft.

The tactics is where it gets confusing. Star Trek has the advantage of hand-waved transporters (with a few hand-waved and plot-convenient limitations). Star Wars has the advantage of hand-waved hyperdrive, and BSG's hand-waved hyperdrive is basically a ship-sized transporter.

So, the best ship that will always win the battle is the ship in the book that I wrote that hasn't been published yet and is still partly in my mind. But I promise when it comes out, it will kick all of those other starships' asses!

Mugato: ha-ha-guy: However the Emperor being the paranoid farker he is, you think he'd check up on things like that. Or just rubbed out the Lars family to clean up lose ends.

Why would Palpatine know about the Lars? Unless he was a Metallica fan.

Even weirder is in the prequels the big deal is that Anakin started training too old. So he couldn't become a Jedi Knight and slids over to the dark side instead. So after screwing that up, when handed a kid, what does Kenobi do? Figure "enh I'll wait till he is 18 or so and then start training him...". Seems weird.

Obi Wan wasn't Luke's legal guardian. He had no control over when or if he was to be trained. In fact it seemed to not even occur to him that he had o drag Luke into it before he saw Leia's message. Even then, when Luke said he wanted to be a Jedi, Obi Wan had a definite "Oh shiat, not this again" look.

Another possibility? Obi-Wan wanted Vader to find Luke.

Think about it. Leia is deeply, intensely passionate, and has a very icy temper. Even as a little girl, that would have been obvious, and Obi-Wan would have just cut off all contact with Organa and prayed Vader never realized he had a new apprentice. After all, Leia was a farking princess. Leaving her alone was best for everyone.

But his second hope was, well, a farking retard, and I have a feeling that was even worse when he was a kid. (I'm sorry, but if you hear your enemy say "No, I am your father", and you do not automatically think "I want a paternity test", you are not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.) So Obi-Wan decided, okay, let's just make this simple. Tell the Lars to keep the kid's last name, wait for a few weeks, and Vader will show up. Then the fight to the death can begin.

When nothing happened, Obi-Wan probably just sort of gave up, especially since Leia was reckless enough to go charging headlong into the Rebellion, and puberty-induced Luke would have been forbidden by multiple peace conventions. Then one day up shows Luke with Leia's holo. Obi-Wan's probably trying to figure out whether to curse the Force for not giving him the smart one or thank the Force for not giving him the biatch.

/And Shatner, you can talk about character development when Star Trek turns into the go-to example for nearly every psychology teacher.
//Oh, yeah. Star Wars perfectly exemplifies Frued, Jung, Campbell, and a few billion other theories. You don't even know.

a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

2 A-wings took out a super star destroyer by nailing a shield generator and crashing in to the bridge, all hands lost. Those are like 8 km long or some crap right?

Drank Malk: 1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.

No, he's right. LAZER = Light Application of Zima Elicits Risqueness

krispos42: And the space-fighter idea, of battleships versus aircraft carriers, is nonsense. On Earth, ships and aircraft operated in two different mediums. In space, both ships and fighters operate in the same medium. Fighters are not "faster" than ships. Acceleration is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio or the biological limits of the crew, and total delta-v by the amount of fuel carried. Ships can carry more gravity compensators and more fuel. So not only can they potentially accelerate faster, they can also reach higher speeds. I'll give fighters the advantage that they can rotate much faster than a ship, and thus can change their thrust vector much faster.

Fighters also can't turn and bank in space. They can vector... the same as the ships can. The Galaxy-glass ships can achieve acceleration of over 1,000 g's. Not bad for a four-million-ton ship.

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

rolladuck: ISD > Cylon Basestar > NCC 1701D > BSG > NCC 1701

Why would you rank a Cylon Basestar so high? They never win a fight without their magical nonsense "oh you have a network so I can hack you" killswitch. And that's against the Galactica, a 40-year-old ship that was supposed to be retired.

LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).

Dorks.

And I completely understand that a Star Destroyer could take out a Galaxy-class pussmobile within minutes.

Fano: GIS fails me but I simply cannot find the old pic from a zine showing 3PO and Leia in post-coital after glow. A pity.

"Oh! Oh! My servo-pelvic Accu-Jak!"

/obscure?

AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).

Done and sucked (new window)

Star Trek had fighters in DS9; they were cannon fodder for the big ships.

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).

Done and sucked (new window)

Star Trek had fighters in DS9; they were cannon fodder for the big ships.

Forgot...

More awesome approach, looked badass...still sucked (new window)

/The Blackbird was a sexy plane

dougputhoff: Where's Tom Baker when we need him?



"Actors are able to trick themselves into treating anything as if it's fantastic. It's a kind of madness really."

"Most drama in our lives is really rather squalid."

"I think quite often a fate worse than death is life - for lots of people."

WeenerGord

I find I must bow head and grant you +1 internets. Well played.

If you want to rate the universes with space ships...

Firefly > Stargate > Futurama > Star Trek > Star Wars

...and they're all awesome.

Multiple episode TV show versus two hour movie. It's not really fair to compare which could portray a deeper story.

Personally a fan of the sag. Let 'em swing.

Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]



BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

ya i wonder if the old enterprise could cope with a tie bomber swarm...

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

Voyager. Dark Frontier. Interestingly enough, into a Borg Ship.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.



Unless of course, it is a Super Class Star Destroyer (Dreadnought) then beaming a photon torpedo onto the bridge would make it instantly crash into the nearest large body.

All that being said, the Star Trek ship would win the fight only for the fact that their capital class vessels have the turning and maneuverability and speed of a star fighter class from Star Wars. Star Wars' capital ships are only used to targeting large capital ships with their heavier guns.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy:

and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source


Its easy to do with fake numbers.

Shatner is the man! But Alien kicks both Star Trek and Star Wars out of the water.

Nem Wan: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

1,014 in very spacious private quarters. In the alternate Klingon War timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Enterprise D is configured to transport up to 6,000 troops.

This is moot. He never said beam them aboard. Beam the whole farking crew into space.

Although, isn't the transporter limited in the number of individuals/objects it can transfer at a time? IIRC, there's a TNG episode in which it takes hours (if not days) to evacuate a small population from a planet's surface.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

1, you can hold them all in the console, stored as data. not the android, but like 0s and 1s.
2, if you were evil, say klingonian or romulan, you could just beam the opposing crew into space, instead of bringing them aboard, leaving a really nice clean ship ready for you.

All you need to know about an interdimensional conflict between Star Wars vs Star Trek.

PsiChick: (I'm sorry, but if you hear your enemy say "No, I am your father", and you do not automatically think "I want a paternity test", you are not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.)

I love delving into the real and imagined back-stories of stuff like this. Seriously. But I think you're off target.

When Vader dropped the Maury Bomb on Luke, he told him to "search his feelings" or whatever. I think The Force enabled Luke to see the truth of it regardless of his initial skepticism (which he did display along with shock and horror).

One other thing to consider is that Trek is not very militaristic. Their idea of ground troops is Ensign Ricky with a little phaser pistol and no body armor (the red shirts!). Whereas everyone in Star Wars is militaristic, has doctrines (some good, some shiatty), a military office corps, etc.

The Fed seems like a split between military, exploration, and some peacekeeping/diplomacy duties.

So at the end of the day it's not the Enterprise vs an ISD. It's 250,000 ISDs, a Death Star, a bunch of super star destroyers, and all the associated support ships (Strike Cruisers, VSDs, Carracks, Lancers, Neb-Bs, etc) versus like ten thousand or so Fed warships. End of the day that's likely why SW nudges the Fed, they're from a much more militarized background and have much larger scale wars.

Xenomech: All you need to know about an interdimensional conflict between Star Wars vs Star Trek.