Star Wars vs Star Trek
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
Oh, I thought this was a thread about the Star Trek Armada mod, Star Trek vs. Star Wars 
Now THAT was an RTS...! Nothing like hyperspacing in with a squadron of Tie Defenders and Missile Boats and sinking the shit out of Captain Picard! *hums the Empire Strikes Back theme*
Now THAT was an RTS...! Nothing like hyperspacing in with a squadron of Tie Defenders and Missile Boats and sinking the shit out of Captain Picard! *hums the Empire Strikes Back theme*
digitalwanderer
Legend
Yes, but that fails to take into account Spock/Data's discovery of a way to neutralize the Empire's shields whilst also finding a way to disable their weapons after a bit of adjustments to the main deflector dish....Unknown Soldier said:
did star wars have clocking devices? that would be a big advantage for st.
epic
epic
digitalwanderer
Legend
Not really since they're only talking about the Federation and they have that STUPID agreement to not use cloaking technology. :?epicstruggle said:
Worst thing since the Organians ended the Klingon/Human wars.
Spaceman-Spiff
Regular
Isn't this like comparing apples and oranges?
Star Wars is about wars, Star Trek is about space exploration.
Star Wars is about wars, Star Trek is about space exploration.
WhiningKhan
Regular
I feel cheated.
I finished KOTOR for the first time last weekend, after ~50 hours of serious addiction.
Those ridiculous spec numbers of the SW ships seem like a blasphemy now. Oh well - maybe I should make myself watch Phantom Menace to face the hard reality.
Oh, and it's a good thing I've been burning all those ST:TNG on DVD - feels better to keep up with the underdogs.
I finished KOTOR for the first time last weekend, after ~50 hours of serious addiction.
Those ridiculous spec numbers of the SW ships seem like a blasphemy now. Oh well - maybe I should make myself watch Phantom Menace to face the hard reality.
Oh, and it's a good thing I've been burning all those ST:TNG on DVD - feels better to keep up with the underdogs.
Anybody think this site is more or less resorting to that grade school method of argumentation?
"My thing is a bazillion time's stronger!"
"Nu uh, my thing is a hojillion billion times plus one!"
I don't think the creators of both franchises ever went into power dissipation envelopes.
[nerd mode]
However, we also do need to define what the boundaries are for a fight between a Star Treck ship, say the Enterprise, and a star destroyer.
Granted, there is a serious range disparity, as the Star Wars ships are workhorses for a galaxy spanning empire, while Star Trek has them running in a quadrant.
Firepower wise, I'm willing to give the Star Wars ship the edge, though I deduct points for the fact they can't hit a damn thing. Star Trek ships get a bonus in that they tend not to miss more than 3/4 of the time.
Shield-wise I'm willing to give the edge to Star Wars again, if only because in Star Trek shields fail when the captain gets morning wood.
Strategically, a fleet of Star Wars ships would probably defeat a Star Trek one.
However in a tactical 1 on 1 battle, the Star Trek ship would probably be able to defeat or force a star destroyer to withdraw. This is mainly due to the fact that combat in Star Wars takes place at sub-light velocity, while Star Trek ships have the option with photon torpedoes to engage at FTL speeds. Firing blindly as much as they want, imperial gunners can't hit something too fast to see or reach.
However, the Empire has far less of a problem glassing a Federation planet in retaliation than vice versa.
[/nerd mode]
"My thing is a bazillion time's stronger!"
"Nu uh, my thing is a hojillion billion times plus one!"
I don't think the creators of both franchises ever went into power dissipation envelopes.
[nerd mode]
However, we also do need to define what the boundaries are for a fight between a Star Treck ship, say the Enterprise, and a star destroyer.
Granted, there is a serious range disparity, as the Star Wars ships are workhorses for a galaxy spanning empire, while Star Trek has them running in a quadrant.
Firepower wise, I'm willing to give the Star Wars ship the edge, though I deduct points for the fact they can't hit a damn thing. Star Trek ships get a bonus in that they tend not to miss more than 3/4 of the time.
Shield-wise I'm willing to give the edge to Star Wars again, if only because in Star Trek shields fail when the captain gets morning wood.
Strategically, a fleet of Star Wars ships would probably defeat a Star Trek one.
However in a tactical 1 on 1 battle, the Star Trek ship would probably be able to defeat or force a star destroyer to withdraw. This is mainly due to the fact that combat in Star Wars takes place at sub-light velocity, while Star Trek ships have the option with photon torpedoes to engage at FTL speeds. Firing blindly as much as they want, imperial gunners can't hit something too fast to see or reach.
However, the Empire has far less of a problem glassing a Federation planet in retaliation than vice versa.
[/nerd mode]
I'm ashamed to know this, but the Federation's cloaking agreeement is only applicable in the Alpha quadrant. Hence the Defiant was allowed to use a cloak in Deep Space Nine when it was gallavanting around the Gamma quadrant looking for the Dominion.digitalwanderer said:
Regarding the essay, I thought it was fun, but the SW ships figures looked stupidly high - or the ST ship stats stupidly low. However, I'd have to dig out my copy of The Physics of Star Trek to know which one was more "realistic".
Comparing the specs of various sci-fi shows (and Star *.* in particular) is beyond stupid, but if one wants to go in that direction, I don't see how in heck anything out of star wars short of a small moon-sized fully armed and operational battle station could beat a star trek ship.
Two words: anti-matter warheads. (Uh, or is that three words?)
Each photon torpedo carries a four kilogram reactant mass, do a quick e=mc2 on that and you end up with vaporized star destroyer coming out the other end of the equation.
In the end though, they're just interesting adventure stories, sometimes with a thoughtful moral twist (at least in -trek, in -wars, you get jar-jar's mug on a made in china lunchbox instead). They're both cool, IMO, and I wouldn't want to be without either. No need to take sides here, I love B5 too by the way. But "Crusade" was utter pap for the most part, what a letdown!
Two words: anti-matter warheads. (Uh, or is that three words?)
Each photon torpedo carries a four kilogram reactant mass, do a quick e=mc2 on that and you end up with vaporized star destroyer coming out the other end of the equation.
In the end though, they're just interesting adventure stories, sometimes with a thoughtful moral twist (at least in -trek, in -wars, you get jar-jar's mug on a made in china lunchbox instead
). They're both cool, IMO, and I wouldn't want to be without either. No need to take sides here, I love B5 too by the way. But "Crusade" was utter pap for the most part, what a letdown!Just a quick note:
According to the BBC, the sun has an estimated output of 386 billion, billion megawatts
According to the star wars site, the reactor output of a troop transport is:
200 trillion GW
386 * 1 billion * 1 billion * 1million watts
200 * 1 billion * 1billion * 1000 watts
In other words, a transport's reactor is approximately 1/2000 of a star that expends approximately 4,200,000,000 kilograms of mass every second to produce the necessary continuous power output.
According to that site, a star destroyer betters the transport by a factor of 10. Now we have something that is 1/200 of the sun, only it magically pulls its energy out of the aether, since no star destroyer has the mass to sustain a matter-conversion reaction of that magnitude for any significant amount of time.
I don't know how one radiates 1/200 of the sun's energy output from an object that is .000000000000000000000000000000000000somethingridiculouslysmall of its area and mass.
What does this indicate?
What was already obvious, that everything to do with this scifi nerd pissing match (including all of what I've just shown) is an utterly useless and insanely meaningless exercise.
According to the BBC, the sun has an estimated output of 386 billion, billion megawatts
According to the star wars site, the reactor output of a troop transport is:
200 trillion GW
386 * 1 billion * 1 billion * 1million watts
200 * 1 billion * 1billion * 1000 watts
In other words, a transport's reactor is approximately 1/2000 of a star that expends approximately 4,200,000,000 kilograms of mass every second to produce the necessary continuous power output.
According to that site, a star destroyer betters the transport by a factor of 10. Now we have something that is 1/200 of the sun, only it magically pulls its energy out of the aether, since no star destroyer has the mass to sustain a matter-conversion reaction of that magnitude for any significant amount of time.
I don't know how one radiates 1/200 of the sun's energy output from an object that is .000000000000000000000000000000000000somethingridiculouslysmall of its area and mass.
What does this indicate?
What was already obvious, that everything to do with this scifi nerd pissing match (including all of what I've just shown) is an utterly useless and insanely meaningless exercise.
That and (at least according to ESB), cloaking devices do exist, just that 'no ship as small as the millenium falcon could have one'.digitalwanderer said:Not really since they're only talking about the Federation and they have that STUPID agreement to not use cloaking technology. :?epicstruggle said:
Worst thing since the Organians ended the Klingon/Human wars.
Here's a good face-off:
Which is better, the Federation's infinite supply of red-shirted ensigns, or the bottomless barrel of imperial storm troopers?
I think this might be a draw, but the similarities are eerie.
1) Aim: Neither has any.
2) Survivabillity: Despite the fact that stormtroopers wear bulky armor, little more than a single shot or an ewok arrow can kill them. Red-shirted ensigns die so much that they are used to plug hull breaches.
3) Economy: Stormtroopers have a higher base cost when it comes to equipement, something the red-shirted ensigns do not have. Spandex and the equivalent of a silver deputy's badge don't cost much. However, it seems the federation has everyone go through Starfleet Academy, so I guess the financial aid means this is a wash.
4) Operational utility: "Look sir, droids!" *gets shot* vs. "Look captain, a geoffries tube!" *gets shot*
5) Military parade: In this case, the imperials win.
6) Hanky panky: The Federation is the safe leader here. Gotta make new ensigns somehow.
7) Names: Stormtroopers get soulless numbers, ensigns are lucky to get a last name before they are vaporized.
8 ) Dignity: I dunno. I think one stormtrooper might have had a pretty good last gurgle. The imperials got beaten by furry marketing ploys. The ensigns get beaten by control panels without circuit breakers.
However, the ensigns do highlight the need for seatbelts in every engagement in a Star Trek episode.
Which is better, the Federation's infinite supply of red-shirted ensigns, or the bottomless barrel of imperial storm troopers?
I think this might be a draw, but the similarities are eerie.
1) Aim: Neither has any.
2) Survivabillity: Despite the fact that stormtroopers wear bulky armor, little more than a single shot or an ewok arrow can kill them. Red-shirted ensigns die so much that they are used to plug hull breaches.
3) Economy: Stormtroopers have a higher base cost when it comes to equipement, something the red-shirted ensigns do not have. Spandex and the equivalent of a silver deputy's badge don't cost much. However, it seems the federation has everyone go through Starfleet Academy, so I guess the financial aid means this is a wash.
4) Operational utility: "Look sir, droids!" *gets shot* vs. "Look captain, a geoffries tube!" *gets shot*
5) Military parade: In this case, the imperials win.
6) Hanky panky: The Federation is the safe leader here. Gotta make new ensigns somehow.
7) Names: Stormtroopers get soulless numbers, ensigns are lucky to get a last name before they are vaporized.
8 ) Dignity: I dunno. I think one stormtrooper might have had a pretty good last gurgle. The imperials got beaten by furry marketing ploys. The ensigns get beaten by control panels without circuit breakers.
However, the ensigns do highlight the need for seatbelts in every engagement in a Star Trek episode.
read the quoted page.Guden Oden said:Comparing the specs of various sci-fi shows (and Star *.* in particular) is beyond stupid, but if one wants to go in that direction, I don't see how in heck anything out of star wars short of a small moon-sized fully armed and operational battle station could beat a star trek ship.
Two words: anti-matter warheads. (Uh, or is that three words?)
Each photon torpedo carries a four kilogram reactant mass, do a quick e=mc2 on that and you end up with vaporized star destroyer coming out the other end of the equation.
In the end though, they're just interesting adventure stories, sometimes with a thoughtful moral twist (at least in -trek, in -wars, you get jar-jar's mug on a made in china lunchbox instead
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/
Goes into extreme detail, adn the only conclusion is - YOU ARE WRONG.
However, feel free to debate anything you want, on mike wongs website (www.stardestroyer.net) forums - he'll do a much better job shutting you down than I could.
Yes, i visited that site in the past. Yes, i have read almost all of the content. Yes, I read the forums.
Srar Wars pwns Star Trek.
Trek ships have shitty shields, shitty speeds, and shitty weapons.
here is a taste, for your vaunted "anti matter"
Oops, looks like your anti-matter weapons do jack and shite.
funny thing about people who go gaga over anti-matter - they seem incapable of doing the math to see what it actually does.
Althornin said:read the quoted page.3dilettante said:Just a quick note:
According to the BBC, the sun has an estimated output of 386 billion, billion megawatts
According to the star wars site, the reactor output of a troop transport is:
200 trillion GW
386 * 1 billion * 1 billion * 1million watts
200 * 1 billion * 1billion * 1000 watts
In other words, a transport's reactor is approximately 1/2000 of a star that expends approximately 4,200,000,000 kilograms of mass every second to produce the necessary continuous power output.
According to that site, a star destroyer betters the transport by a factor of 10. Now we have something that is 1/200 of the sun, only it magically pulls its energy out of the aether, since no star destroyer has the mass to sustain a matter-conversion reaction of that magnitude for any significant amount of time.
I don't know how one radiates 1/200 of the sun's energy output from an object that is .000000000000000000000000000000000000somethingridiculouslysmall of its area and mass.
What does this indicate?
What was already obvious, that everything to do with this scifi nerd pissing match (including all of what I've just shown) is an utterly useless and insanely meaningless exercise.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/
Goes into extreme detail, adn the only conclusion is - YOU ARE WRONG.
However, feel free to debate anything you want, on mike wongs website (www.stardestroyer.net) forums - he'll do a much better job shutting you down than I could.
Yes, i visited that site in the past. Yes, i have read almost all of the content. Yes, I read the forums.
Srar Wars pwns Star Trek.
Trek ships have shitty shields, shitty speeds, and shitty weapons.
here is a taste, for your vaunted "anti matter"
Oops, looks like your anti-matter weapons do jack and shite.
Eh? Forgive me but I'm not following where what you said is somehow debunking what you quoted. I wasn't even quoting Star Trek's slightly less insane power numbers.
I was comparing the power output and dissipation needs of a transport and star destroyer (quoted from the linked page) to the Sun.
You know, the 1,400,000 km diameter ball of plasma with a core temperature of 15 million degrees K? The one that exists in the real world.
My point was that the insanely (more like insanely insane) high numbers being quoted require a reactor--that the site assumes operates in a continuous fasion--to dissipate as much energy as 1/200 of the sun with less than an extremely miniscule fraction of the mass and surface area.
How is it that a Star Destroyer with a continuous reactor output approacing 1/200 that of the Sun with nowhere near the surface area still maintains what appears to be a relatively cool room temperature? I mean, the sun has trillions of times more surface area, and it still is over 15 million degrees (5800 at the surface that is a quarter of a million kilometers from the core).
How is it the bridge of an imperial ship that is within 2 km of the reactor still permits its captain to have a cool refreshing glass of Corellian iced tea, while still permitting him to be British?
I don't think you can answer that.
Wait, why am I debating this? Curse my terminal geekiness!
Yes, the number Star Wars fans pull out of their asses are indeed much higher than the number Star Trek fans pull out of theirs. I guess you win this round against Star Trek.
However, I still win the war, since I have on my side the Sun, whose rays drive off the fanbase of both series'.
edit: You changed what you wrote, so the post has lost some of its meaning.
blah!_xxx_ said:Both Star Wars and Star Trek ships were rather lame.
Remember Babylon5? Now those Shadows/Vorlon ships would beat a s**t out of both
Firefly all the way. Only spaceship that showed a toilet.
epic
Similar threads
- Locked
