Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

GoC wrote:1. Nope, for instance an episode of Voyager has them finding a superadvanced race descended from our earth's dinosaurs! Roughly 65 million years old. I can't remember any other specific examples but I remember at least a couple of races who had numbers like "hundreds of millions" attached to their age.
2. It's just that the federation and their enemies inhabit a tiny portion of the galaxy.
3. Obviously. I was speaking as if the fed used all the tech available in a decent way. They never will though.

1. Nope, I would have top take issue with that, unless they were already highly technologically advanced when they left earth (which the fossil record doesn't seem to show)

Also, the Star Wars galaxy is about 20000 light years bigger than the Star Trek galaxy, assuming that the Star Trek galaxy is the Milky Way.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:07 pm UTC

hideki101 wrote:
GoC wrote:1. Nope, for instance an episode of Voyager has them finding a superadvanced race descended from our earth's dinosaurs! Roughly 65 million years old. I can't remember any other specific examples but I remember at least a couple of races who had numbers like "hundreds of millions" attached to their age.
2. It's just that the federation and their enemies inhabit a tiny portion of the galaxy.
3. Obviously. I was speaking as if the fed used all the tech available in a decent way. They never will though.

1. Nope, I would have top take issue with that, unless they were already highly technologically advanced when they left earth (which the fossil record doesn't seem to show)

Also, the Star Wars galaxy is about 20000 light years bigger than the Star Trek galaxy, assuming that the Star Trek galaxy is the Milky Way.

1. Star Trek obviously isn't set in our universe. I mean they have FLT by 2060 and a massive war against genetically engineered supersoldiers in the 1990s!
2. As above. And even if that's the case it's not that big a difference.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:13 am UTC

GoC wrote:
hideki101 wrote:
GoC wrote:1. Nope, for instance an episode of Voyager has them finding a superadvanced race descended from our earth's dinosaurs! Roughly 65 million years old. I can't remember any other specific examples but I remember at least a couple of races who had numbers like "hundreds of millions" attached to their age.
2. It's just that the federation and their enemies inhabit a tiny portion of the galaxy.
3. Obviously. I was speaking as if the fed used all the tech available in a decent way. They never will though.

1. Nope, I would have top take issue with that, unless they were already highly technologically advanced when they left earth (which the fossil record doesn't seem to show)

Also, the Star Wars galaxy is about 20000 light years bigger than the Star Trek galaxy, assuming that the Star Trek galaxy is the Milky Way.

1. Star Trek obviously isn't set in our universe. I mean they have FLT by 2060 and a massive war against genetically engineered supersoldiers in the 1990s!
2. As above. And even if that's the case it's not that big a difference.

I suspect that if not in the same universe, then at least it's in the same galaxy, due to the number of references to current astronomical objects like the Andromeda galaxy. The Star Wars galaxy has no such reference.
Also, assuming stellar densities to be roughly equal, the Star Wars Galaxy would have about 880 million to 1.76 billion more stars than the Milky way. That is a gigantic amount of resources and locations compared to the Star Trek Galaxy.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:17 am UTC

hideki101 wrote:Also, assuming stellar densities to be roughly equal, the Star Wars Galaxy would have about 880 million to 1.76 billion more stars than the Milky way. That is a gigantic amount of resources and locations compared to the Star Trek Galaxy.

A 70% increase. And as they haven't even partially colonized all planets their potential output should they choose to do so makes no difference.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

User avatar
Levi
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:12 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Levi » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:29 am UTC

If any of the ST races got their act together and actually started looking hard for those artifacts mentioned in several episodes, they could increase their power by several hundred percent. There was one artifact in TNG (I think it was made by the Iconians) that could instantly teleport anyone anywhere, which would make ST ships faster than SW ships. Plus, there's many non-corporeal races in ST and (to my limited knowledge) one or none in SW.

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 » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:05 am UTC

Yeah, but if SW galaxy pooled their resources they could build enough suncrushers to simultaneously make every star in ST galaxy go nova at the same time.

And then SW would have a fleet of invulnerable starfighters with the capability to make a star go nova, and ST would have a few leftover ships with no support at all.
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:25 am UTC

Antimatter Spork wrote:Yeah, but if SW galaxy pooled their resources they could build enough suncrushers to simultaneously make every star in ST galaxy go nova at the same time.

And then SW would have a fleet of invulnerable starfighters with the capability to make a star go nova, and ST would have a few leftover ships with no support at all.

1. I disagree. That suncrusher is said to cost the same as the Death Star! There's no way they can build the billions nesseccary to "make every star in ST galaxy go nova at the same time". Any evidence that they can build a billion death stars?
2. ST has star destroying weapons that can be made by a rogue scienctist with a shoe-string budget!
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6971
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 Jan 23, 2009 11:42 pm UTC

My money is still on the Krenim time weapon. It's ability to remove events from the past should make it able to prevent anything the Star Wars universe can throw at the Star Trek universe from ever existing. It's notorious unreliability was due to the fact that it couldn't really remove things from it's own universe without undesirable causal side-effects, but since there isn't a causal connection between the SW and ST universes, there should be no trouble.

And fighting it would pose problems as well, and I quote memory alpha:
"The ship obtained its power to affect time from its temporal core. When in operation, the core also kept the ship, and everything and everyone on it, outside of normal space-time. This rendered the ship immune to all conventional weapons and protected the crew from the flow of time, effectively rendering them immortal. Perhaps because of this, the ship's conventional defenses were rather limited."
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

Blodhgarm14
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:11 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Blodhgarm14 » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:26 am UTC

I think that Star wars would win, hands down. They are much faster, and http://starwars.wikia.com/Aayla_secura Aayla can pwn the entire ST galaxy– hands down. :wink: Seriously though, the force is incredible. Also search Google trends for "Star War, Star Trek" sometime. Star Wars is 4x as searched for.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Brooklynxman » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:18 am UTC

In the words of Darth Vader:

"The power to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force".

Star Wars wins right there.

Also, with the exception of betrayal and fighting Sith (the jedi won the mandalrioan wars, barely, but won) the jedi cant be beat
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
ian
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:55 pm UTC
Location: Sealand

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby ian » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:17 am UTC

there seems to be a lot of various time-based weapon/ships/tech in star trek that i was unaware of. fleet v fleet or army v army it's star wars hands down, but add in all the other stuff and star trek seems to have the upper hand.

Cige
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Cige » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:52 pm UTC

I think you are all asking the wrong question. It's not about which side is more powerful, it's about whether or not the borg gain force powers when they assimilate a jedi.

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:26 am UTC

Cige wrote:I think you are all asking the wrong question. It's not about which side is more powerful, it's about whether or not the borg gain force powers when they assimilate a jedi.

I would assume that jedi would be able to retain their identity in the event of assimilation, assuming the assimilation takes place at all.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Technobeast holds an event that is quite similar to the borg's assimilation methods.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

warrbo
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby warrbo » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

REALLY? is this a serious conversation thread? Really? REALLY?

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 Feb 02, 2009 9:51 pm UTC

You're in religious wars. There are few bigger than this one.
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.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:53 pm UTC

warrbo wrote:REALLY? is this a serious conversation thread? Really? REALLY?

Who do you side with?
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

Mr. Sluagh
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Mr. Sluagh » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:00 am UTC

The most over-the-top setting that takes itself the least seriously will always win. Whoever is least constrained by reality and has the technology that's least constrained by the laws of physics has a clear advantage. Therefore: Dr. Who > Star Wars > Star Trek > Battlestar Gallactica > Firefly.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:52 am UTC

Mr. Sluagh wrote:The most over-the-top setting that takes itself the least seriously will always win. Whoever is least constrained by reality and has the technology that's least constrained by the laws of physics has a clear advantage. Therefore: Dr. Who > Star Wars > Star Trek > Battlestar Gallactica > Firefly.

Star Trek is way more inconsistent and wild (seriously, the two early series are more or less "stuff happens, don't think too much about it"). So I'd change that to:
Dr. Who = Star Trek > Star Wars > Battlestar Gallactica > Firefly
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

User avatar
KOSMOSX7
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:58 am UTC
Location: New York, NY

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby KOSMOSX7 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:33 am UTC

I'm not going to open an account on TrekBBS just for this, so I guess here's the best place for it.

Anyhow... my little bro and I were playing Nanostray 2, when a fighter crawled up his ass and exploded. As his ship rematerialized, it donned a shield that granted him about 2 seconds of invincibility, whereas I told him to ram the fighters instead of shooting at them.

That got me to thinking, why is it that the last resort of every Trek starship battle is to physically ram the other ship when shields are down? What do you guys think would happen if ships chose to ram each other while their shields were *up*? Granted, it's a dumb question, but it just nags and nags me.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:53 am UTC

KOSMOSX7 wrote:That got me to thinking, why is it that the last resort of every Trek starship battle is to physically ram the other ship when shields are down? What do you guys think would happen if ships chose to ram each other while their shields were *up*? Granted, it's a dumb question, but it just nags and nags me.

Ramming is actually pretty rare. When it happens between shielded ships the whole bridge crew get thrown of their feet (as usual) but the actual damage varies.
In more evidence of Star Trek inconsistency: two ships ramming eachother at about 20kmh will do serious damage but atmospheric reentry at 36,000kmh will cause only minor hull bukling.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby aireoth » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

Honestly, I think it would come down to one thing, airsuperiority. I know this takes place in space, but the concept is the same, Star Trek, as much as I love it, is not, and never has been, a universe properly setup for war. First, Star Trek completely lacks fighters, other then a few shuttles and smaller ships, they have nothing thats a one man fighter, lest you grasp at a few space scenes in Deep Space Nine, and those still look multi man. Star wars would have the fighter superiority, with which presents Star Trek with an unwinnable fight. Phasers could probably track fighters to a reasonable degree, but given that they can miss shuttles and smaller ships, I doubt they'd be great at it. Several wings of Republic fighters would seriously endanger a Star Trek ship, combine that with a cruiser or equal, star trek doesn't have a hope. Maybe the borg, and I am sure they could pull Deus Ex Machina like they alway do and convert the deflector grid into a anti fighter weapon, but I stand by Star Wars from a military aspect.

Each ship in star trek is a island unto itself, especially in regards to the federation, multitasking between rescue, exploration, science, and combat. Even the little ships and shuttles have something of everything. which has to make them time consuming to produce, and less effective at a single task. Once again, Star Trek just isn't setup to be an effective combat universe, Star Wars primary premise is fighting a war, so it is.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:04 pm UTC

All this talk about the Sun Crusher is amusing: in Star Trek: Generations, Dr. Soran developed a trilithium missile that can destroy an entire star.

Also, Star Trek has time travel.

That's right. We're gonna travel through time, pick up the Enterprise-J, load that fucker up with trilithium torpedoes, travel back in time to the era before the Rakatans invented space travel, and blow up their star system, along with every other inhabited star system in the Star Wars galaxy.
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.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:03 pm UTC

aireoth wrote:First, Star Trek completely lacks fighters,

You fail.
Fighters NEVER make sense in sci-fi!
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters

Phasers could probably track fighters to a reasonable degree, but given that they can miss shuttles and smaller ships, I doubt they'd be great at it.

In TOS ship combat took place at immense distances and the missing could be justified.
But now...
Their accuracy is abysmal. Probably the worst in fiction, far worse than our present aiming tech. Needless to say, no explanation is given.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby aireoth » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:22 am UTC

GoC wrote:aireoth wrote:
First, Star Trek completely lacks fighters,

You fail.
Fighters NEVER make sense in sci-fi!
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters


If your going to drag reality into this, then both universe collapse under the weight of being fiction, and this argument, while already pointless, is now moot.

What I am trying to say, is that Star Trek the universe, is not setup for war. Star Wars is, with hyperspace capable fighters, carriers, proper fleets (no enterprise warping around alone), and intridictors (Which we could argue forever if they would work against a warp ship). In the end, assuming a degree of technological compatability and comparability, Star Wars proves to be tactically flexible and versatile in combat, and would likely win.

That being said, I think TNG Series beats Star Wars the movies. As far as watching and enjoying, it has versitility in spade, from fights to more subtle plots. Star Wars is great, but how many times can you really watch the original movies (because I hate the new ones) before they go on the shelf and you leave them there for years. That being said, Nemisis was a load of crap, worst Star Trek film ever (in my eyes).

User avatar
ian
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:55 pm UTC
Location: Sealand

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby ian » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:59 am UTC

Hundreds upon hundreds of times.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:11 am UTC

aireoth wrote:If your going to drag reality into this, then both universe collapse under the weight of being fiction, and this argument, while already pointless, is now moot.

I fail. :(

Agreed.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:50 pm UTC

aireoth wrote:What I am trying to say, is that Star Trek the universe, is not setup for war. Star Wars is, with hyperspace capable fighters, carriers, proper fleets (no enterprise warping around alone), and intridictors (Which we could argue forever if they would work against a warp ship). In the end, assuming a degree of technological compatability and comparability, Star Wars proves to be tactically flexible and versatile in combat, and would likely win.


You must never have seen the large fleet actions in Deep Space Nine.

Further, you must not understand the massive strategic advantage that time travel gives to the Star Trek universe. Both Star Trek and Doctor Who would easily defeat Star Wars for the simple reason that Star Wars is utterly incapable of waging a time war.
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.

User avatar
Neuman
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:37 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Neuman » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:57 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Further, you must not understand the massive strategic advantage that time travel gives to the Star Trek universe.

You mean none whatsoever, because of the Temporal Prime Directive? By the time the Federation is desperate enough to violate it, the Empire will have probably already have time travel themselves, thus negating the advantage. It only takes one scientist cracking under interrogation, and the Empire's not above fighting dirty.
Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:13 pm UTC

Yes but remember we're engaging the entire Trek universe against the entire Star Wars universe. Also remember that the Federation has already engaged in a time war and that one captain in particular has "amassed seventeen separate temporal violations during his career, more than any other person on file".
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.

aireoth
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby aireoth » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:21 pm UTC

How did Dr. Who even make it into ST vs SW? I mean in that case, lets throw in Warhammer 40k and Marvel Comics, ultimate nullifier ftw, the multiverse is obliterated and every one loses except Abraxas.

Back on this religious topic. Yes Star Trek has deus ex machina on its side, pulling deflector grids and tachyon fields into some very odd and suddenly useful weapon (also notice how it is almost always something different, never use the same trick twice!) I have seen Deep Space Nine, and I agree with most users in this post, that it is one of the worst Star Trek series, that said I still enjoy the latter half of it.

So DS9 makes fleets, at the end of the day they are Star Trek fleets, no fighters, long range missle support, intradictors, etc. Nothing in the 'normal' time zone of the Star Trek universe can really trap a fleet, which makes winning a war strategically impossible, sure you could ambush a Republic fleet, but other then 'trying' to take out there engines before they jump, you end up lossing most of the fleet as they run away. Where are Star Wars does have the ability to trap a fleet and stage long range fighter missions, Star Trek does not.

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.

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.

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.


Now I feel like I should pop some zits and clear some phlegm, arguing this has regressed me to teenagedom and all my hard work hiking europe without a computer for the last six months, nooooooooooo! :)

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

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.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6971
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

Blodhgarm14 wrote:Also search Google trends for "Star War, Star Trek" sometime. Star Wars is 4x as searched for.


By this logic, the entire Star Wars universe is unable to defeat Britney Spears in combat.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:59 pm UTC

Neuman wrote:You mean none whatsoever, because of the Temporal Prime Directive? By the time the Federation is desperate enough to violate it, the Empire will have probably already have time travel themselves, thus negating the advantage. It only takes one scientist cracking under interrogation, and the Empire's not above fighting dirty.

There's the problem with your assumption. The time travelers know that the empire is going to aquire timetravel if left unchecked and so act to prevent it.

aireoth: Timetravel has been used in all five series and two movies.
Also, if Star Trek uses it's McGuffins to the full it can use transporter technology to manufacture more or less whatever they want in seconds (I'll find the link if you want).
The only thing capable of outpacing their growth rate might be the gate-clone technology from Schlock Mercenary and even that's a bit iffy as they have to gate-clone new gates and assemble them to get true exponential growth.

It's good that you removed the super-advanced one-shot races from the fight but you'll also have to impose some limits on what McGuffins can be used and decide how to modify teleporters, replicators and who knows what else to prevent abuse.
ST is the universe you least want to fight. As written they simply can't lose once their plot-required stupidity is removed.
Last edited by GoC on Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

User avatar
HawkDesigns
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:53 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby HawkDesigns » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:25 pm UTC

Hmm, how difficult. But since I've never really seen Star Trek, I go with Star Wars. Besides, SW has lightsabers.
Spoiler:
Image
^Clicky clicky^

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

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby BlackSails » Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

Time travel wouldnt work against the empire. Prior to the universes merging, they arent in the same place. After they merge they have their billion kiloton or whatever handguns.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GoC » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:24 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Time travel wouldnt work against the empire. Prior to the universes merging, they arent in the same place. After they merge they have their billion kiloton or whatever handguns.

They simply bring in a fleet from the future. Or an entire fleet of one ship!
Have a single time-ship go back in time one minute and signal it's past self.
Both then go back in time again one minute and signal the ship there.
And so on until you've got a fleet of a few million time ships, each with the ability to destroy entire star systems.

This obviously depends on what time travel system you're using but Star Trek has used this one in the past AND has had three different enterprises from different time periods gathered together so it's pretty certain that this will work.

And their handguns are merely the power of a decent grenade. Quite a lot but definitely not in the billion kiloton range.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Philwelch » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:38 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Time travel wouldnt work against the empire. Prior to the universes merging, they arent in the same place. After they merge they have their billion kiloton or whatever handguns.


After the merge, they're still in totally different galaxies: Star Trek is in our galaxy and Star Wars is in a galaxy far, far away.

You can easily time travel to early enough before the Rakatan empire to fly a transwarp-equipped fleet from our galaxy to the Star Wars galaxy in time to wipe out the Rakatan star system.
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.

Blodhgarm14
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:11 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Blodhgarm14 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:30 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
Blodhgarm14 wrote:Also search Google trends for "Star War, Star Trek" sometime. Star Wars is 4x as searched for.


By this logic, the entire Star Wars universe is unable to defeat Britney Spears in combat.


That wasn't my point. :D

I think that we should consider this to be happening in a "neutral" universe, because then neather side has a home field advantage and neither can destroy the others past.

sikyon
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby sikyon » Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Dear lord, Star Trek would WIPE THE FLOOR with Star Wars. Can you say "DEUS EX MACHINA?!?!"

If we discount Deus Ex Machina, Star Trek still wins. Why? The Borg. O Hai Gais I'm travellin in my warp space, where you can't shoot me but I can shoot you, I stop for a second, beam drones right through your goodamn sheilds, and assimilate your ship in short order. Then I have all of your technology, if blasters are ionized gas then I can adapt simultaniously to all of it, and destroy you.

O Hai Jedi adapt to lightsaber, at least 4 meter reach on nanotubes, and "wide spread" kill settings on phasers.


In short, the borg win because of warp travel where they can shoot, transport, see, etc, everything that you can't do in hyperspace. Transwarp is also faster than hyperspeed. Borg are also capable of turning entire planets into war effort material, and can adapt to star war's most common weapon because it's based on a simple and easy premise.

Now if we exclude everything above fedaration tech level, and allied the klingons, fedaration, romulans, and cardassians and the dominion, it would be a fair fight (assuming that the weapons are on the same damage level, which in the movies is not supported... in the movies, star wars weapons are really weak, based on their effects against stuff like asteroids). It would mostly be a fair fight because the dominion owns a fourth of the galaxy, has fantastic tech, genetic engineered soldiers that can be pumped out lickety split and massive production facilities that unfortunatly couldn't get through the wormhole. Advantage star wars though, because of ground combat experiance.

Of course, lets throw deus ex machnia minus time travel back in.

This is what happens:

The borg drop isolinear mines or whatever and blow up entire solar systems (which they wanted to do for deployment of nanoprobes against 8472 but feds wouldn't let them), and the other races use trilithium probes which are probably dirt cheap to make (a private citizen did it), about 2 meters long and can travel at warp speed, or near the speed of light (if interdictors worked -_-) with actual military technology instead of a cobbled-together probe, throw these on to every ship and run into the SW galaxy. They then procede to anhilate every star system in their path, while being invulnerable when faster than light. For those extra well defended worlds, just unleash metagenic weapon on a subspace carrier wave. This literally allows you to distribute a virus that destroys a planet's ecosystem in days with a range that's in the solar system level. Hey some other races have transporters that range over light years too. Just have one of them beam over a genesis device, which will instantly destroy a planet or anything else the feds want.

Remember, all these weapons are small ship sized and don't cost entire fleets to build. Common, genesis device vs death star. It's pretty obvious that the genesis device is in every way a superior weapon (except for awesome factor, though :shock: )

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby philsov » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:12 pm UTC

sikyon wrote:Why? The Borg.


One jedi > all the borg from Voyager.

Poor borg. Now easier to kill than klingons.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests