Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6973
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:45 pm UTC

If the Star Trek universe (except Q) declared war on the Star Wars universe, who would win?

Even without Q, my money is still on -trek. No matter how big and overpowered the Death Star is, it's still no match for the entire Borg collective. If that fails, the Krenim temporal weapon can eliminate it from ever having existed.

--edit--

Just realized this thread might be against the rules. If so, feel free to delete it if that is the case.
Last edited by You, sir, name? on Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm UTC

Star Wars is obviously more technologically advanced that Star Trek. How long does it take to travel through the galaxy in Star Wars? Not a century like it does in Star Trek. Also, Darth Vader can kill you with his mind, and the Death Star is fueled by hate.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6973
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:04 pm UTC

Berengal wrote:Star Wars is obviously more technologically advanced that Star Trek. How long does it take to travel through the galaxy in Star Wars? Not a century like it does in Star Trek. Also, Darth Vader can kill you with his mind, and the Death Star is fueled by hate.


But that is just warp-technology. Trek has faster-than-warp technology as well (transwarp, quantum slipstream), it's just not in the hands of the federation.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

Troz
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:16 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Troz » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:35 am UTC

I would tend to side with Star Wars. This link might help explain:

http://www.people.iup.edu/pnwm/comparison.gif
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:36 pm UTC

Now are all the sides in each universe forming alliances against the other universe?

In that case, I would have to say star wars. Vong Jedi > anything in Star Trek. Also, Aiing Ti monks who can teleport and cut ships in half with their minds are pretty badass.

If its just say, the Galatic Republic vs the Federation, thats a closer call.

Noughmad
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:38 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Noughmad » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:03 pm UTC

Star Wars, of course.

See for yourself.
Laziness is the mother of wisdom.
My woblag

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6973
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:36 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Now are all the sides in each universe forming alliances against the other universe?

In that case, I would have to say star wars. Vong Jedi > anything in Star Trek. Also, Aiing Ti monks who can teleport and cut ships in half with their minds are pretty badass.

If its just say, the Galatic Republic vs the Federation, thats a closer call.


Hey! No non-canon stuff, or I'm gonna un-disqualify Q.

Noughmad wrote:Star Wars, of course.

See for yourself.


That's completely irrelevant. This is anything in star trek vs. anything in star wars. We're speaking tens of thousands of Borg cubes with adaptive ship- and personal shielding. Cloaked Romulan ships. The Krenim time weapon. Species 8472.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Hey! No non-canon stuff, or I'm gonna un-disqualify Q.


Expanded Universe is canon.

You, sir, name? wrote:That's completely irrelevant. This is anything in star trek vs. anything in star wars. We're speaking tens of thousands of Borg cubes with adaptive ship- and personal shielding. Cloaked Romulan ships. The Krenim time weapon. Species 8472.


Fine, Star Wars still wins.


Grand Admiral Thrawn

User avatar
Korandder
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:12 am UTC
Location: LoadingReadyRun Australian Astrophysical Observatory
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Korandder » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:59 am UTC

Star Wars of course.

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Image

coppro
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:04 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby coppro » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:19 am UTC

What about the Scimitar? It can kill all life on a planet or a spaceship - of any size.

Also, what is the battleground? Presumably, the Force doesn't exist at all in the Star Trek universe.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:26 am UTC

coppro wrote:Also, what is the battleground? Presumably, the Force doesn't exist at all in the Star Trek universe.


Why is that? We could just as well assume that there are no force sensitives in the Star Trek universe.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby zenten » Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
coppro wrote:Also, what is the battleground? Presumably, the Force doesn't exist at all in the Star Trek universe.


Why is that? We could just as well assume that there are no force sensitives in the Star Trek universe.


There are powerful psychics who can throw crap around with their minds though, they just don't need lame psychic bacteria to do it.

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:47 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
coppro wrote:Also, what is the battleground? Presumably, the Force doesn't exist at all in the Star Trek universe.


Why is that? We could just as well assume that there are no force sensitives in the Star Trek universe.


There are powerful psychics who can throw crap around with their minds though, they just don't need lame psychic bacteria to do it.

LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby existential_elevator » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:55 pm UTC

Trek universe would win.

I'm just wondering, on one-on-one fights, which Captain would be able to take on Darth Vader... The thought of Shatner doing it is near-hilarious.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby zenten » Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:49 am UTC

existential_elevator wrote:Trek universe would win.

I'm just wondering, on one-on-one fights, which Captain would be able to take on Darth Vader... The thought of Shatner doing it is near-hilarious.


Sisko could, but he's basically half god.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby markfiend » Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

OT but I've seen a T-shirt that said 'Star Trek' in the Star Wars font.

Is that equally annoying for both flavours of fandom? :mrgreen:
Attoc dna Sublab evol eht teews secoiv fo eht slrug
pronouns: he/him/his

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:17 pm UTC

Killing planets with a floating space station is nice. Killing stars with a small fighter with invulnerable shielding is better. And from Star Wars.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby zenten » Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:46 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:Killing planets with a floating space station is nice. Killing stars with a small fighter with invulnerable shielding is better. And from Star Trek.


That was a typo, right?

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Endless Mike » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:45 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:Killing planets with a floating space station is nice. Killing stars with a small fighter with invulnerable shielding is better. And from Star Trek.


That was a typo, right?

Nope.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sun_Crusher

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6973
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:15 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:
zenten wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:Killing planets with a floating space station is nice. Killing stars with a small fighter with invulnerable shielding is better. And from Star Trek.


That was a typo, right?

Nope.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sun_Crusher


Still not really relevant. Because we all know that even though Star Wars -might- win over Star Trek with no Q. Star Trek -with- Q is basically unbeatable. Q can turn the Jedi order into butterflies. Sun crushers into marshmallows. Q can play table tennis with the frickin' Death Star.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Mother Superior
Better than tea
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mother Superior » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:29 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Grand Admiral Thrawn


This. Very much this.
My crappy creepy? Crabby? My crabby blog.
"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love."
- Hesiod, Theogony

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby zenten » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:50 pm UTC

Endless Mike wrote:
zenten wrote:
Endless Mike wrote:Killing planets with a floating space station is nice. Killing stars with a small fighter with invulnerable shielding is better. And from Star Trek.


That was a typo, right?

Nope.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sun_Crusher


Ok, Star Trek has the same thing though. It's not Federation technology though, but Dominion.

Xbehave
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:45 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Xbehave » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:44 pm UTC

jedi can defeat the Borg, the basic personalities of the host are preserved in the subconsious, the jedi would be strong enough to regain complete control of their bodies (see some voager episode for citation). After a Borg attack, star wars would have Borg jedi (or put another way robo ninjas) on thier side.
so essentially the jedi would take out the borg / controll the borg
the empire could take on most of the alpha quadrent, due to thier use of conventional warfar
the rebels could take on the jemadar, they could take out the changeling and the jamadar poweder routes (assassination + cutting supply lines is standard rebel stuff)

Q isn't quite omnipotent, assuming he/they gets involved ( which is extremely unlikely as they are forbidden from doing pretty much anything), then it comes down to era, with the weakened jedi/sith in the original film timeline, the Q would win (assuming that dead jedi cant emerge from the force in a similar way that Q come from their own dimension, which TBH i bet they can thier just forbidden in a similar way to Q). In the era of Anikins conception (just before the new films) the strong jedi and strong sith (who were using most of thier power to hide), could take the Q, ofc in this era all the other factors would be different, but generally the 'rebel' tech was more advanced A & B wings, but there would be no rebel faction, so it would come down to the jedi/sith to defeat the jemadar, which i think both are fully capable of doing. OFC if you can redifine era then the federation can use time travel and stuff gets messy

In summary.
NO Q = star wars win
Q, but no force interference ( in EP4,5,6 era) = star trek win
All other situation = star wars win

quite importantly technology (borg), comes second place to training, and the poweres that the Q/jedi posses
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

noneedtonullify
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby noneedtonullify » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:33 pm UTC

Star wars would undeniably win. Even if Q was present, he/they wouldn't bother joining in... they'd get bored too quickly (not too mention that, as said below, they're forbidden from interfering).
The rebel alliance / New Republic alone couldn't really do too much to the federation or dominion, but they wouldn't necessarily fall either. The trouble is that at either point, there is a superior military also coming from the star wars universe (the Empire or the Yuuzhan Vong). Hell, the borg wouldn't stand a chance against the yuuzhan vong... and I would vouch that, like species 8472, the Vong are advanced enough to be able to resist assimilation. They've spent millenia biologically improving themselves! Besides, what good are proton torpedoes when you can just suck them up in a black hole that your heart creates, instead of having a shield.
Additionally, the Chiss and Hapan empires, while they usually avoid fighting wars because they're non-expansionist, bloody rule. Their weapons are amazing, and their warriors trained beyond anything even the jemadar could rival.

What it essentially boils down to is that when the 2 separate universes were created... star wars was much much cheesier, and therefore is fundamentally more powerful because of the constant stream of superweapons that are invented to give the heroes something to fight against (death star, super star destroyers, sun crusher, darksaber, sith, chiss, Grand Admiral Thrawn, Eclipse star destroyer, Yuuzhan Vong, The Living Planet, etc etc).

Because star trek is more realistic (as realistic as the 24th century with warp travel, cyborgs, temporal anomalies, and tribbles can be), everything in it has a weakness that can be easily exploited.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:29 am UTC

I must protest that as soon as anyone in the Federation realized just what Transporter technology was capable of, and was given enough time to increase the amount of physical memory and power storage to use them to their full potential (which should be about two minutes, since star trek characters are capable of hacking up synthetic antidotes ("Babel" STDS91) to viruses and specialized brainwave-interfering magnetic waves ("Passenger" STDS91) in less than this time, and since transporters contain replicators as a subsystem, all needed systems could be manufactured all at once and functional with a single command).

In particular, transporters are usable as a weapon in several ways (convert specific matter/antimatter to energy, convert energy to specific matter/antimatter) and appear to be limited only by range.

See http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/trek/7.html for more ideas.


However, given the very incompatible natures of the star trek and star wars universe on the metaphysical level, we can be sure that if the two universes were to collide, both would be destroyed instantly.

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:31 pm UTC

This man has given this issue a great deal of thought, and he uses math.

It's also a somewhat entertaining read, no matter what your position on Star Trek or Star Wars is.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
wing
the /b/slayer
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 5:56 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby wing » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:13 am UTC

noneedtonullify wrote:Star wars would undeniably win. Even if Q was present, he/they wouldn't bother joining in... they'd get bored too quickly (not too mention that, as said below, they're forbidden from interfering).


Impossible. If Q was present, and Picard still alive and captaining a starship, Q would be INSTIGATING this absurd war as one of his patented Picard mindgames, and as such Star Trek would ultimately win (likely after Earth is destroyed, the Borg annihilated in a scene resembling Wolf 359, Enterprise is crippled by Executor, a surrdender made (but not acknowledged), an abandon ship order issued, the self destruct turned on, Picard trapped on the ship, every last escape pod popped by TIE fighters, and Picard openly cries in front of Q in some heart-touching scene where he's supposed to learn a lesson but really just ends up shouting at Q.) because Q would just put everything back to normal.

Without Q, Star Wars would win no question because the universes are inherently incompatible - Star Trek is imagined as being fairly realistic picture of our own universe, a few hundred years from now, and Star Wars is imagined as being a fantastic place where regular physics aren't taken into account, the logistics and economics behind building absurdly massive ships with unlimited firepower can be ignored. Furthermore, the larger ship sizes of Star Wars are because of the emphasis on Carrier Warfare, because that makes great cinematic sequences (and provided a way for Luke Skywalker to be a hero) whereas economics, non-military missions, and other such things make Star Trek ships largely standalone vessels, which don't even really have effective fighter screen capabilities.


However, I don't think the ship to ship combat would be as straightforward as it initially appears - Star Trek ships are typically heavily shielded, and their hulls do not exhibit any particular weak points making them more or less invulnerable to fighter assault anyway, and I've never really seen or heard of any instances where a capital ship slugfest was actually won by one capital ship destroying the other - it always involves boarding parties (Star Trek handheld weapons are MUCH more advanced than Star Wars handheld weapons, plus security crews have been known to do such things as cutting life support to compromised decks in desparate situations) or some heroic fighter squadron (which we've already determined is a moot point). Star Wars ships, on the other hand, are typically either unshielded, lightly shielded, or shielded by some external source.

Also, my Star Wars battlefront experience tells me that Star Wars ships tend to be geared towards broadside or head-on combat, with their firing arcs being useless outside of those conditions. Star Trek combat tends towards the vertical.
I AM A SEXY, SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!
Akula wrote:Our team has turned into this hate-fueled juggernaut of profit. It's goddamn wonderful.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:54 am UTC

wing wrote:Without Q, Star Wars would win no question because the universes are inherently incompatible - Star Trek is imagined as being fairly realistic picture of our own universe, a few hundred years from now, and Star Wars is imagined as being a fantastic place where regular physics aren't taken into account


Lol. Star Trek is realistic? I think both are completely full of gibberish physics.

User avatar
Eschatokyrios
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:49 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Eschatokyrios » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:39 am UTC

Well, Star Wars blows up more shit real good. But Star Trek's names are generally less silly.
So it's a toss up.

markfiend wrote:OT but I've seen a T-shirt that said 'Star Trek' in the Star Wars font.

Is that equally annoying for both flavours of fandom? :mrgreen:


Awesome. I would totally buy that shirt.
კაცი ბჭობდა, ღმერთი იცინოდაო
k'atsi bch'obda, ghmerti itsinodao
"Man was discussing, God was laughing"
-Georgian proverb

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:51 am UTC

If we're gonna break down "star trek vs. star wars" to "federation vs. empire," then I think star trek will win simply because the federation is made up of a large number of protagonists, who cannot miss, and the empire is made up of a large number of storm troopers who can't hit anything.

Also, federation protags are generally much smarter than anyone in the empire except the sith.

On the other hand, the rebels would totally pwn the federation, because they are made up of protags as well, plus they have MAGIC!

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:20 am UTC

Eschatokyrios wrote:But Star Trek's names are generally less silly.


Have you ever seen I dont know, any episode of star trek? Its always quadrilateral warp matrix this, and Inverted Tachyionic Positronium Field Stabilizer that.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Azrael001 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:55 am UTC

In a war there is now no doubt to me that Star Wars would win. The raw data from the site that was just mentioned proves it. This is because the Star Wars technology is a billion trillion times better than Star Trek...

I have my own universe, in it there is a civilization called the Z'araxnar. They can teleport with their planet sized ships anywhere, instantly. Their small arms shoot black holes, and they are all invincible and immortal.

This universe is cooler because the Z'araxnar can beat anyone. [/being facetious]

I like both, but Star Trek NG is my favorite.
23111

noneedtonullify
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby noneedtonullify » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:29 pm UTC

Heh, I still have to side with Star Wars. Star Trek ships have shields, yes, but so do Star Wars ships. Additionally, the only Trek ship with any notable hull strength, armour, and integrity is the Defiant. The federation simply doesn't bother protecting their ships with anything more than shields. Star Destroyers, on the other hand, can take a pounding on their hull AFTER their shields go down. Unless particular weak points on the ship (such as the bridge, shield generators, engines, turbolaser batteries) are targetted and destroyed, the ship can't be stopped. To actually blow up a star destroyer, even just a vic (compared to an imp deuce or super), would require firepower a Trek ship just couldn't provide.

Besides, if we're going to include extended universe items, Jacen and Anakin Solo's crazy force powers in the New Jedi Order series, when they become one with the force, would be more than enough to just disintegrate Q.

Additionally, Centrepoint station and the Galaxy Gun could destroy anything anywhere at any point. Centrepoint, in one shot, destroyed half a Hapan fleet and 2 / 3 of an entire Vong fleet. Nothing in the federation (or Borg or Dominion) armoury could stand up to something like that. How long would the Federation keep fighting after the Galaxy Gun has destroyed Earth without warning by firing a super-long range projectile through hyperspace at speeds that the Trek universe hasn't even imagined possible.

Star Wars is still just too excessively stupid powerful and cheesy, regardless of whether personal favour is to Star Wars or Star Trek.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:58 pm UTC

noneedtonullify wrote:Additionally, the only Trek ship with any notable hull strength, armour, and integrity is the Defiant. (emphasis added)


Actually, when the Defiant was introduced, it was stated quite plainly that it had far more power in its engines and weapons than its frame could support. If taken to maximum speed, it would tear itself apart.

noneedtonullify wrote:To actually blow up a star destroyer, even just a vic (compared to an imp deuce or super), would require firepower a Trek ship just couldn't provide.


As long as they continued to misapply their transporter phlebotinum, this is true. But in a true matchup, the Federation ingenuity would come through to figure just what amazing power the transporter technology is capable of. Even if they continue to misapply it, they could just use it to randomly transport people from the bridge into open space. Who's gonna fire the superweapon then?

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:30 pm UTC

To be able to use the transporter, the target's shields need to be down. Star Trek ships wouldn't be able to put even a small dent in a star destroyer's shields. Fighters, possibly, but as stated in the before mentioned website with numbers, anything larger than Fett's Slave 1 has more powerful everything than Enterprise D. Well, even Slave 1. I guess maybe a TIE fighter would have some trouble...
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

noneedtonullify
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby noneedtonullify » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:12 pm UTC

Pardon the irony of such a statement, but the transporter technology argument is purely speculation.

There is no example, in any of the Trek series, of a transporter ever being used as either a direct weapon (as aforementioned), or being used to transport people of another ship into space.
The Federation would never resort to either of these even if A: they were feasibly possible given the limitations of the 2 universes, and B: they were on the verge of defeat (which they would be). The entire Federation is built upon ideals of peace, exploration, etc etc, and they would never utilise such a weapon even if they did figure out its potential (which, through 5 full television series they never did once). If Cheif never managed to do it under the extreme duress and pressure of the Dominion assault, and the crew of Voyager never managed to discover this potential amid all the other wacky things they did, I'm sure its not a permissible argument.

Centrepoint station, the Galaxy Gun, the Eclipse star destroyer and the Death Star were all fully operation and utilised at some point in Star Wars literature... I would personally claim them to be valid tools. Not once is a transporter used as a weapon in Star Trek... to claim it so would then be to permit, for example, the use of a really frickin' big Vong basin to just suck the entire Trek universe into a black hole.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:44 pm UTC

I counter all arguments against the other potential uses of the trasporter being realized by the
Lensman Arms Racetrope. Given an enemy as powerful as the empire, the federation would eventually be forced to ramp up their attack power. . .and the quickest way to do that is by making use of the transporter.

I counter the shield argument with a quote:

Justin B Rye wrote:What do you mean, they'll have shields up (cf. "Menage à Troi", STTNG3)? They transport through shields - tacitly in "A Taste of Armageddon" (STTOS1) and "Encounter at Farpoint" (STTNG0); explicitly in "The Wounded" (STTNG4).


Edit: and another:

tvtropes.org wrote:One example is the 'dimensional transporter', that could transport things straight through even a Galaxy-class starship's shields (or any other shields) without trouble, but had a cumulative and lethal side effect on people who used it repeatedly. And while that's obviously a sane reason not to use it in normal service, it does nothing to explain why they didn't use it for, oh, one-way trips by inanimate objects straight through enemy starship shields... objects like armed anti-matter warheads, for example.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:27 am UTC

quintopia wrote:
noneedtonullify wrote:Additionally, the only Trek ship with any notable hull strength, armour, and integrity is the Defiant. (emphasis added)


Actually, when the Defiant was introduced, it was stated quite plainly that it had far more power in its engines and weapons than its frame could support. If taken to maximum speed, it would tear itself apart.


I hope they shot the engineer that designed it.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby quintopia » Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:40 am UTC

Why? It was an alpha model. It never made it to beta for political reasons.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:23 am UTC

quintopia wrote:Why? It was an alpha model. It never made it to beta for political reasons.


Its like building a building thats the tallest building in the world, but it cant support people on any floor above 10. Its an example of incredibly poor engineering.

(Also an example of incredibly poor physics. The size and power of the engine has no bearing on maximum speed)


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests