aireoth wrote:So DS9 makes fleets, at the end of the day they are Star Trek fleets, no fighters, long range missle support, intradictors, etc.
The Jem'Hadar use fighters, but fighters are not particularly useful in space combat.
aireoth wrote:If your bringing Time Travel into it, then your jumping time periods in the shows, and if you branch into all the Star Wars novels you get insane abilities as well. I'm limiting it a bit to Alpha Quadrant races (say before nemisis) vs the Galactic Republic (pre-Vong). Also a time war has always been shown as a bad thing for the federation, see multiple broken timelines in enterprise and voyager.
Whereas time travel has been used to save the Federation, for instance in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (TNG), Star Trek IV, "The City On The Edge Of Forever" (TOS), "Star Trek: First Contact", the entire Temporal Cold War from "Star Trek: Enterprise", "Past Tense" (DS9), "Star Trek: First Contact", and many other instances.
In short, the Federation will not stop short of using time travel to defend itself. Furthermore, other ST races (including the Borg and the Suliban) are more than willing to *start* time wars.
The simple application of technology from Star Trek Generations (trilithium torpedoes), Star Trek IV (gravity-slingshot time travel), and Voyager (Borg transwarp) would be all that is necessary to completely destroy the Rakatans, and thus prevent the development of hyperdrive or the establishment of any galactic empires. Keep in mind that the main *weakness* of Star Wars (the fact that hyperdrive and nearly all the technological basis for SW technology comes from the Rakatans) comes from the EU as well.
aireoth wrote:My point still remains, Star Wars is a universe setup for war, I will aggree that Star Trek has wars in its universe (as I've watched them on TV), but the concepts and designs of the ships aren't meant for war. It was proved many years ago that creating massive ships designed to carry large amounts of firepower to the battlefield is a good way to lose. Sure the dreadnaughts of WWI and WWII where imposing, but the cost of losing those ships, compaired to the cost of destorying them wasn't worth it. Same with tanks, WWII german tanks where just too expensive and time consuming to produce compaired to the cheaper, assembly line constructed Sherman, despite a Tiger being vastly superior.
The largest capital ships the Federation uses are cruisers. They've never built anything on the scale of a Super Star Destroyer or a Death Star. So I think your argument here is somewhat misapplied.
aireoth wrote:Lastly war is heavily based on economies, as long as technologies are generally on the same level (so I'm not really counting time travel, suncrushers, or borglike things) war boils down to cost. how much did it cost to train that soldier, whats the potential damage they can cause, whats the lose if they die, and is it $ for $ viable. Strategy and Tactics all focus towards maximizing the cost effectiveness of your forces. Put it this way, losing a few squadrons of fighters to take down an Akira class is a small price to pay. The fact that ST ships have so much equipment on them makes it reasonable to assume that its a costly and time cosuming lose when one is destroyed. Astrometric labs and holosuits don't grow on trees.
Star Trek has *replicators*, and an economic abundance to such a degree that money has been abolished. Even a single tiny ship on its own (Voyager) has no problem popping out shuttlecraft as quickly as they are lost, keeping the crew fed, and keeping the ship in top condition no matter how much damage it takes.
And when you add the efficiency of the Jem'Hadar to that (not even the Borg)...?
Furthermore, technologies *aren't* on the same level. ST would wage a time war, SW would wage a space war. SW would quickly cease to exist.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Perfection is an unattainable goal.