Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:36 am UTC

OllieGarkey wrote:The Human Race in Star Wars is far more advanced than the Human Race in Star Trek. Our homeworld probably went nova a long time ago in Star Wars.

If you go back in time in the SW universe to just after humans discovered FTL Technology (Would that be before the Great Hyperspace War?) then things would be much more even.

Even so, Romulan decloak-strikes with disruptor weapons combined with Federation phasing cloak (The Federation has it, but can't deploy it by treaty) could probably catch the federation and Romulans a hyperspace-capable vessel fairly quickly. Thanks to replicator technology, which the empire DOESN'T have, industrial replicators would have the Alpha Quadrant stamping out hyperspace-capable, re-armed ships within weeks.

And I don't think stormtroopers would do well against Klingon shock troops.

The easiest way to take control of an Imperial Star Destroyer? Phase-Cloak a photon torpedo, let it float into the vessels bridge, and detonate it. Meanwhile, Phase-Cloaked assault shuttles drop Klingon and Federation shock troops inside.


First you say that two million years before A New Hope is a better comparison for ST, and then you say ST has better tech than the Empire.

1. Disruptors in star wars are portable, although organic based. Disruptors in ST are more akin to anti matter bombs. Inflated.
2. The Empire has cloak tech which renders them entirely invisible, and invincible. On a personal scale, they are not invincible, but invisible.
3. Disruptor weapons and phase torps cannot even dent an ISDs shields.
4. ISD docks and engineers are better than ST. It is just that the bureaucracy is bad.
5. Clones can be grown in a day.
6. Stormtroopers suffer from SMA. Klingon troops are not covered by SMA.
7. SMA is a plot element, so it doesn't count.
8. Weeks is a petty number. Days is more like it.
9. Reverse engineering the hyperdrive does not make ships ultra fast. Firstly, it would take months to accomplish something like that. Secondly, you need parts you do not have. Thirdly, reverse-engineering reduces the quality of the hyperdrive, so a 0.7 becomes a 5. Fourthly, it requires so much energy that with ST based-energy sources, it would be only plausible on the largest warships.
Stormtroopers are elite troops. SMA says it all.
10. Even anti meteor shields are strong enough to repel any ST weapon. Battleshields are practically impossible to penetrate. Armor is also very thick.
11. You can't just high-jack an ISD like that. The stormtrooper compliment is not on the bridge. Also, there are anti missle PD lasers, and tractor beams to stop the missle, which is just floating there.

By the way, is the a mass-produced ST ship with an energy output that would allow it to level a planet in an hour? Thats what a run-down ISD is.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:14 pm UTC

CinnamonOne wrote: Secondly, you need parts you do not have.

Replicator? For that matter, you only need to reverse-engineer the drive to the extent that you know how to make it move. Once you know that, you can just replicate it across the entire fleet.
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby setzer777 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Given the preservation of unique technologies across civilizations in Star Trek, I think it's safe to say that replicators don't magically make reverse engineering that much easier. It could be that replicating something takes just as much (if not more) knowledge, resources, and effort as more conventional imitation.

Likewise given that we only see the phase cloak in one episode (and the technology isn't revived even during the bleakest part of dominion war), it's unjustified to assume it's some unstoppable trump card.

Coming from the perspective of conventional warfare using the weapons and methods the different sides have been shown to use on a regular basis, I think the Empire could overwhelm the three primary alpha quadrant empires due to their superior size and engine/weapon capabilities.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole
User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby OllieGarkey » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

Well, I'd say you're right. Most of the alpha quadrant races would be stomped very quickly unless they could replicate necessary advances in time.

But there's one race that probably wouldn't let any of this happen. And remember, this is Star Trek, vs Star Wars. Everything in Star Trek vs. Everything in Star Wars.

Game Over:
Attachments
q-tapestry.jpg
User avatar
OllieGarkey
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:17 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby setzer777 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Well yeah, if we're including everything in each universe teamed up then it's obviously true that the universe with godlike beings wins. Makes for a short conversation though.

Here's a question: are there any factions in Star Trek that are roughly on par with the Empire in terms of technology? Or are there just "races that would be stomped", and "beings with godlike control over time and space".
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole
User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby OllieGarkey » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:31 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Well yeah, if we're including everything in each universe teamed up then it's obviously true that the universe with godlike beings wins. Makes for a short conversation though.


Glad we agree on that point.

Here's a question: are there any factions in Star Trek that are roughly on par with the Empire in terms of technology? Or are there just "races that would be stomped", and "beings with godlike control over time and space".


Empire Vs. the Borg.

The moment the borg assimilate even an Imperial Shuttle, it's game over. Nanotechnology immediately rewires weapons across the whole of the borg fleet.

They assimilate a star destroyer and it's all over.

For everyone.

Ever. Because the borg will figure out where the Empire are from, how they got here, and then they'll use that to follow them home.

Do you know how long it would take the borg to assimilate everything if they had hyperspace technology and the ability to travel between galaxies?

A handful of years?

Edit

So the doomsday scenario is that the empire ends up jumping into borg space and gets ganked by a number of cubes. Assimilation to weapons negates the empire's technological advances, assimilation beams that can transport drones in ignore imperial armor and shielding. I've never heard of "frequency modulation" or whatever the specific phlebotinum was that allowed phasers to occasionally hurt Borg drones on blaster rifles.

Evil Space Zombies vs. Evil Space Nazis = Zed Holocaust

Edit:Scifi Ship Size Comparison.
Last edited by OllieGarkey on Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OllieGarkey
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:17 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby setzer777 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

Hm, not necessarily. Borg adaptation isn't magic - there would still be physical and engineering constraints as to what they can block. It's possible that Imperial weapons could just brute-force overpower any energy dissipation technology the Borg use. Especially by the time of Voyager it's clear that some weapons are just too strong for Borg ships to resist.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole
User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby OllieGarkey » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Hm, not necessarily. Borg adaptation isn't magic - there would still be physical and engineering constraints as to what they can block. It's possible that Imperial weapons could just brute-force overpower any energy dissipation technology the Borg use. Especially by the time of Voyager it's clear that some weapons are just too strong for Borg ships to resist.


Yes, but that depended on Janeway understanding borg technology thanks to inside information from Seven.

Without understanding the enemy technology, the empire wouldn't neccesarily have the advantage of knowing where to hit the enemy.

Also, look at the size of Borg ships on the chart I edited into the last post.

Borg cubes are massive.

I would argue that borg vs. empire would be a fair fight as long as they don't show up with the entire imperial fleet and a super-star destroyer.

Then the borg might have to marshall some forces, and transwarp in.

But if they can make off with even a single assimilated star destroyer, and transwarp away... give them some time, and we're all in trouble.
User avatar
OllieGarkey
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:17 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Qyygle » Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:00 pm UTC

But Star Wars isn't just humans, there're other species too. If we're going to throw in the Borg and all that, we might as well be including the Yuuzhan Vong and everything else that ever came up in SW. For all you know, the Empire could drop a horde of Rakghouls on Earth and eliminate half the human population.
And I don't know about you, but the fastest firing ranged infantry weapon I've seen in Star Trek has been a handphaser, with almost no way to aim accurately or wield effectively unless for security purposes... An Imperial Stormtrooper with a heavy repeater would cut down several Klingon before they even got in range...
Qyygle
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:57 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:57 am UTC

It has already been seen that the Borg are absolutely useless on the strategic level, as although they can analyze frequencies at acceptable speed, they cannot react to proper military tactics. Time for Grand Admiral Thrawn!!!

And turbolaser technology has no frequency. It isn't a laser. A mini nuke in each shot. With thousands of shots coming your way. (and thats light turbos!) That is the punishment SW shielding and armor must withstand. One salvo would blow a 3 km by 3 km cube away (OK, maybe not one shot, but close enough).

Transporters do not work through shielding. BAM!

One assimilated ISD is nothing. Replicators reproduce technology, not energy. You couldn't reproduce hypermatter, and no trekkie techie has an energy source powerful enough to do so. Gee, even an X-wing would be hard for ST to power, so forget a Lambda

A blaster isn't a laser as well. SW doesn't use photon masers. Sure Chiss use Masers, but their masers are so different for modern day masers, that they can be considered separate things.

Melee weapons in star wars are vibros. Sure, vibrates to a frequency, but it blows up when it meets electricity (vibro-gun!!!)

So, the Borg simply do not have the energy to do anything with SW tech. Forget Anti-matter, it does not even rival hypermatter.

I'd say: ISD 20, Borg -2
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:37 am UTC

I do not remember where this is mentioned, but I have vague memories of the Enterprise being capable of glassing a planet, just through phaser blasts.

Also, how does ST deal with rapid-fire Picard maneuvers?
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:27 am UTC

http://stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html

And that is from a standard, mass-produced ship.

And that is only middle-weaponry

Hyperspace and shielding would take a huge amount more.

The armor, being able to withstand several turbolasers, would probably be so chemically unique to SW that replicators would never be able to replicate it (seriously, they cannot even create gold). And they can only create what has been programmed in them

Check this out as well
http://stardestroyer.net/toc.html
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby AGDANE » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:00 am UTC

The problem with the question is that Star Trek rarely start wars and when they do, they don't try to annihilate the enemy, just get it to surrender and stop its what-ever triggered the war. Star Trek explores, engages in intercultural negotiations and likes to understand others' perspectives, to learn. Even the Borgs are not unambiguously evil. Although the Borgs have done terrible things to them, they don't try to annihilate the Borgs to take revenge, just to render them harmless.

Star Wars, on the other hand, has one focus: to annihilate the enemy, who is unambiguously and irreversibly evil. When the enemy is killed, the Universe will be good ever after. However, there is always a new enemy popping up, or an old one pops up again... otherwise there would be no Star Wars stories.

That should make Star Wars more motivated to win the war against Star Trek (Star Trek would be seen as the ultimate Force of Evil), so that would speak in Star Wars' favour for winning the war. On the other hand, the Star Trek crew would probably be more innovative and able to take surprise actions and apply their technologies in new ways, building on the teams' ideas (as they usually do). Due to their strong emphasis on cooperation, they may also have at their disposal an extremely diverse army of allies from all the Star Trek worlds, some of which can travel in time, morph into different sorts of life, apply mind reading, psychologically impact the enemy, and so on and so on. Many of the creatures from the Star Trek Universe would be incomprehensible to the Star Wars crew due to Star Wars' lack of intercultural focus (annihilate as opposed to explore & learn). So there would be good scope for surprise & guerrilla warfare against the Star Wars side; which would probably also be less diverse and easier to predict due to its relatively simple, co-ordinated focus.

The Star Trekkers also have great negotiation skills, which they may try to apply in various ways, not saying that it would get them anywhere. But then again, the outcome could be an innovative surprise solution no one has thought of, maybe some sort of trade opportunity.

All in all, Star Wars would be more effective for short destructive bursts of war, but could easily run themselves down over the long term due to the costs of large scale, repetitive wars and they wouldn't be as wise and innovative. I'll put my money on Star Trek because wit, curiosity and flexibility tends to beat simple minded violence in the long run. (isn't that why we humans have succeeded over all our predators)
AGDANE
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:16 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:00 am UTC

It's like a zombie movie where this thread comes back from the dead
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.
User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby EvanED » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:03 pm UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:It's like a zombie movie where this thread comes back from the dead

After reading that I really really want to register a new account named StarTrekVsStarWarsThread and necro some other threads with it, but I won't.
EvanED
 
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:21 am UTC

Let dead threads lie.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sean Quixote » Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:17 pm UTC

Trek.

The only way Wars could possibly be better is if you're a fanfiction (not just on the internet, I'm lumping the books in too) reader. And I'm only saying "possibly" because I'm not a fanfiction reader, so I honestly can't say that I know which is better. Though, another reason why I assume it's possible is the same reason why I feel like the on-screen versions of Trek are better: quantity eventually tends to trump quality. What I mean by that is that, even if you think that Wars is a better quality story overall (which I most certainly never have), I would argue that Trek still has more good material overall, simply because there's more of it: Wars is just six films, and no TV shows that I know of; Trek has more films, and 5 TV shows on top.
User avatar
Sean Quixote
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:20 am UTC
Location: Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby You, sir, name? » Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

You should re-read the OP.
I now occasionally update my rarely-updated blog.

I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.
User avatar
You, sir, name?
 
Posts: 6566
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sean Quixote » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Or, read it in the first place, I suppose. :D

I thought it was just generally, "Which is better?" but that's cool too. I would have to agree pretty wholeheartedly (especially on the disallowing Q part :P) with your logic there, too. I also read the "Scope of Religious Wars" thread after having posted in this one and I was like, "Oh, so I wasn't supposed to talk about which is better from an artistic point of view, but just a technical, which-has-the-better-weapons-and-stuff point of view?" I almost feel like I've been slightly emasculated... :P
User avatar
Sean Quixote
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:20 am UTC
Location: Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby AvatarIII » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

Sean Quixote wrote:Trek.

The only way Wars could possibly be better is if you're a fanfiction (not just on the internet, I'm lumping the books in too) reader. And I'm only saying "possibly" because I'm not a fanfiction reader, so I honestly can't say that I know which is better. Though, another reason why I assume it's possible is the same reason why I feel like the on-screen versions of Trek are better: quantity eventually tends to trump quality. What I mean by that is that, even if you think that Wars is a better quality story overall (which I most certainly never have), I would argue that Trek still has more good material overall, simply because there's more of it: Wars is just six films, and no TV shows that I know of; Trek has more films, and 5 TV shows on top.


technically Star Wars has 7 movies, 2 TV Shows and butt loads of games,
User avatar
AvatarIII
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sean Quixote » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:22 pm UTC

Ah, I forgot about games. In that area, just like with the books that George Lucas apparently has a specially-made rubber stamp with which to seemingly blindly approve as "official canon", there's just way too much quantity for there not to be quality somewhere... :P

But as I indicated, I've just never really been all that in to Star Wars, so I don't know about any TV shows. But... what's the seventh film that I'm forgetting?
User avatar
Sean Quixote
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:20 am UTC
Location: Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby AvatarIII » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:25 pm UTC

Sean Quixote wrote:Ah, I forgot about games. In that area, just like with the books that George Lucas apparently has a specially-made rubber stamp with which to seemingly blindly approve as "official canon", there's just way too much quantity for there not to be quality somewhere... :P

But as I indicated, I've just never really been all that in to Star Wars, so I don't know about any TV shows. But... what's the seventh film that I'm forgetting?

apparently in star wars there are not just "canon and not canon" there are 5 layers of canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_ ... e_Holocron
G-canon is absolute canon; the movies (their most recent release), the scripts, the novelizations of the movies, the radio plays, and any statements by George Lucas himself. G-canon overrides the lower levels of canon when there is a contradiction. Within G-canon, many fans follow an unofficial progression of canonicity where the movies are the highest canon, followed by the scripts, the novelizations, and then the radio plays.

T-canon[1] refers to the canon level comprising only the two television shows: Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the Star Wars live-action TV series. Its precedence over C-Level canon was confirmed by Chee.[2]

C-canon is primarily composed of elements from the Expanded Universe including books, comics, and games bearing the label of Star Wars. Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background information are themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon.

S-canon is secondary canon; the story itself is considered non-continuity, but the non-contradicting elements are still a canon part of the Star Wars universe. This includes things like the online roleplaying game Star Wars: Galaxies and certain elements of a few N-canon stories.

N-canon is non-canon. "What-if" stories (such as stories published under the Star Wars: Infinities label), crossover appearances (such as the Star Wars character appearances in Soulcalibur IV), game statistics, and anything else directly contradicted by higher canon ends up here. N-canon is the only level that is not considered official canon by Lucasfilm. A significant amount of material that was previously C-canon was rendered N-canon by the release of Episodes I-III.
User avatar
AvatarIII
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sean Quixote » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:35 pm UTC

Wow, holy crap... It's like Halo numbers except for Star Wars canon...

I hope Trent Reznor doesn't ever do any official Star Wars soundtracks, cause that would just be WAY too confusing. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Sean Quixote
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:20 am UTC
Location: Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:33 am UTC

Talking meta-wise, I personally like Wars, but that's my discretion.

That is of opinion.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CoryG » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:10 am UTC

I know it wasn't an option, but Stargate beats both - with the temple of Dakara all you starwars/startrek nerds would be erased and/or rewritten as seen fit.
CoryG
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:56 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby setzer777 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:36 pm UTC

If semi-omnipotent beings are participating, then Star Trek wins.

If we're talking war between conventional forces (let's say all the alpha quadrant empires and the Dominion vs the Empire), then the Empire wins with ease. They exist on a such a larger scale (a galaxy-spanning civilization that they can traverse in hours), that it would be no contest. According to the power chart linked above (which is also confirmed by the demonstrated destructive abilities in the movies), a single Star Destroyer could probably take on entire fleets of Federation vessels. Even if they didn't have such a massive advantage in weapons, their hyperdrive (able to cross the galaxy in less than a day) means that they could outmaneuver the enemy and strike any undefended spot almost instantaneously.

Edit: Here's a link for simply laid out weapons data: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole
User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby lalop » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:58 am UTC

setzer777 wrote: According to the power chart linked above (which is also confirmed by the demonstrated destructive abilities in the movies)




Wait, so we've "seen" stray shots blow up entire cities with their 6 gigaton (or, God forbid, 200 gigaton) yields? I.e, these figures aren't just being made up via some producer saying "I'm writing a guide; let's just pick some really ridiculous number for the space tech!"

In either case, a > 90m asteroid (larger than the Defiant anyway) was also considered vaporizable via its phasers (albeit modified from the usual pulse setting). That alone is evidence enough that someone's numbers are unreliable (and both have to be valid for a comparison).
lalop
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby lalop » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:24 am UTC

To actually have a crack at the question, I think it would depend on another factor that hasn't really been considered: how willing are the ST races to share technology with one another? They may hypothetically be allied against SW, but how strong is this hypothetical alliance? If they did share technology, we'd have:

  • The Voth, whose transwarp is more or less as fast as hyperdrive (and whose cityship can transport entire ships into it while disabling all their technology, but we can ignore that for now..)
  • Species 8472, who can blow up planets by linking five of their ships
  • The expendable, cheap, and quickly produced Jem'Hadar troopers as ST's shock force (one of them matured in a matter of days, compared to months/years? for a SW clone batch)
  • Dominion transporters with a range of several light years. (Or even the folded-space transporters previously talked about, that can likely send torpedoes straight through shields, but we'll assume here that everyone forgot about those...)
  • The abundance of cloaking technology, which already has precedent for being shared
  • Finally, the phasing cloak (also mentioned here previously) which already exists, should the Romulans decided to suspend the Treaty of Algeron. Such a cloak would make shields completely irrelevant. You'd have an invisible enemy whom you can't hit and who passes through you (and can probably shoot straight into you; who needs trench warfare when you can decloak next to the Death Star's main reactor?)

And, of course, this does not even mention the nightmare scenarios: 1) Borg assimilate Jedi, clone midichlorians, and yield a "Jedi Collective" that can throw around entire fleets like toys 2) the Time War people from the future coming to help. In the 29th century alone, timeships could portal agents practically anywhere in the galaxy, and they could try again even if they failed the first time. By the 31st century (if not before), at least one temporal faction was capable of preventing the development of civilizations. Who cares about the Kremlin Weaponship with their measly Warp 6, when these guys can send their agents anywhere, anywhen to immediately do the job for them?

In short, I think Star Trek secretly has all the tech it needs (even nightmare scenarios aside); it's simply not consolidated because its writers were far more worried about long-term overpoweredness compared to the SW people who were just going for a massive action story.

Finally:

  1. Doctor Who not only can beat the ST + SW universes, it already has :P. The Doctor's TARDIS blew up and took every universe with it (according to the Cybermen); it's only back because he managed to "reboot" everything.
  2. I'd like to see the Doctor vs Q. I honestly think that would be a fair fight (not if Q catches the Doctor with his pants down, ofc, but for some reason that never seems to happen..)
lalop
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:54 am UTC

I'd be more worried about Jedi assimilating Borg, than vice versa. Midichlorians are not mindless bubbles. Nor are the Jedi. As for non-Jedi Infantry attacking the borg, I recommend orbalisk armor commandos and base delta zero until a synthetic, less lethal means can be identified.

And Star Trek does not have the technology it needs. The numbers don't add up. They just don't even have enough energy to face Star Wars, let alone ships and a workforce. Cloaking technology isn't widespread in Star Wars because it is illegal and top secret, like militaries today. Having an abundance of cloaking technologies is no advantage, as such abundance means mass-production, and common weaknesses. The weaponry is multiple grades inferior. With everything either equal or in favor of Star Wars, thing look grim for the Star Trek Universe.

Then again, it would never happen, such a scenario, since their physics are entirely different in either place.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby lalop » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

lalop wrote:
setzer777 wrote: According to the power chart linked above (which is also confirmed by the demonstrated destructive abilities in the movies)




Wait, so we've "seen" stray shots blow up entire cities with their 6 gigaton (or, God forbid, 200 gigaton) yields? I.e, these figures aren't just being made up via some producer saying "I'm writing a guide; let's just pick some really ridiculous number for the space tech!"

In either case, a > 90m asteroid (larger than the Defiant anyway) was also considered vaporizable via its phasers (albeit modified from the usual pulse setting). That alone is evidence enough that someone's numbers are unreliable (and both have to be valid for a comparison).


Follow-up: by comparison, these are the damages that would be done by stray turbolaser shots, should we believe your numbers.

Screenshot_2012-04-11-16-28-17.png
6 gigaton stray shot
Screenshot_2012-04-11-16-29-32.png
200 gigaton stray shot


This begs the question: why have a Death Star at all? 20 years of absurdly expensive construction just to do the same thing that ten minutes of stray shots could've done? (A feat which was intended to be possible in Star Trek, by the way; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgihmmLY ... ed#t=4m31s ) The only reasonable conclusion here is that someone was making up numbers out of their ass.

Source: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
lalop
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:47 pm UTC

This thread is like Boba Fett. Every time you think it finally died, it blows up it's own jetpack and comes back for more.


lalop wrote:Wait, so we've "seen" stray shots blow up entire cities with their 6 gigaton (or, God forbid, 200 gigaton) yields? I.e, these figures aren't just being made up via some producer saying "I'm writing a guide; let's just pick some really ridiculous number for the space tech!"
We've seen light turbolasers vaporize large nickel -iron asteroids, which put them in the high kT/low MT range. This is exactly what we would expect based on other descriptions of their firepower. It even agrees nicely with their relative power compared to that of heavy turbolasers, whose power we could estimate based on known capabilities (like the Base Delta Zero, but I'll come back to that in a moment) except that we don't have to, because we've been given official, canon numbers.
If you're curious, the 200 gigaton number first appears in Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections by Curtis Saxton. Dr. Saxton holds a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics, he's not exactly some random producer just looking for a suitably big number. The book isn't just some isolated piece of fluff, either. The number line up well with "observed" events and existing estimates (if anything, it showed that those estimates had been on the conservative side) and another fan noticed in the RotS DVD extras that at one point you can actually see ILM artists using it as a reference while working on RotS.

In either case, a > 90m asteroid (larger than the Defiant anyway) was also considered vaporizable via its phasers (albeit modified from the usual pulse setting).[citation needed]
When was that?

Follow-up: by comparison, these are the damages that would be done by stray turbolaser shots, should we believe your numbers.
[snip pictures]
This begs the question: why have a Death Star at all? 20 years of absurdly expensive construction just to do the same thing that ten minutes of stray shots could've done? (A feat which was intended to be possible in Star Trek, by the way; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgihmmLY ... ed#t=4m31s ) The only reasonable conclusion here is that someone was making up numbers out of their ass.

Remember how I said the numbers lined up with what we already turbolasers are capable of? Thank you for proving that point. Base Delta Zero is a high priority order in the Imperial starfleet. The operation it authorizes involves one Star Destroyer glassing a planet in one hour. Literally ending all life on the planet and reducing the entire surface to molten slag. Those maps are exactly what I'd expect to happen when shot by a ship that can do that in one hour.

That is why planets in Star Wars have planetary shields. That, in turn, is why the Emperor wanted the Death Star. Any spacefaring civilization can cause an extinction level event on an undefended planet if they really want to. A single destroyer can BDZ an unshielded planet. But if a planet goes turtle, you can either settle in with a fleet and dedicated siege weapons like torpedo spheres, or you can shoot it once with a Death Star.

Really, it's not like any of this is from out of left field. People forget that we're talking about a galactic scale civilization that was several millennia old. Their large engineering feats rival small celestial bodies. They can traverse their galaxy in hours or days. They mine black holes the way we dig for uranium, and put forcefields around entire planets. Why shouldn't the main guns on their warships be that powerful?

Edit: I don't know what the original intention was for the bombardment in The Die is Cast, but what we got in that episode, while not star wars levels of power, was pretty consistent with the rest of Star Trek. We saw some large atmospheric disturbance... and that was it. No flashes visible from space, no fountains of molten ejecta or exposed mantle, nothing like that. What we do see is pretty much what we'd expect from a starships whose heavy weapons are in the double digit MT range, like star trek.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."
User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby lalop » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:25 am UTC

GonzoMcFonzo wrote:Remember how I said the numbers lined up with what we already turbolasers are capable of? Thank you for proving that point.


The actions taken by the Imperial fleet, in turn, make no sense, given this supposed firepower and the behavior of the shield protecting Hoth. The Imperials were forced to land ground-troops "beyond" the shield. But really, let's take another look at that supposed blast radius:

Screenshot_2012-04-11-16-29-32.png


Even an angled bombardment, or a descend-and-pewpew strategy from a Star Destroyer would've been enough to devastate the entire continent. Concentrated fire along the edges of the shield would've caused enough earthquakes to destroy the Rebel Base and kill everyone inside. Concentrated fire along the rest of the planetary surface would've changed the entire climate (similarly to a Base Delta Zero operation "slagging" an entire planet) causing extreme weather conditions and a heat wave that would've melted the base's ice tunnels and collapsed it.

I mean, the shield wasn't actually protecting anything at all; why did the Imperials even give a crap about it?

For that matter (and looking, once again, at the burn map), why is Hoth's cold even an issue, given this level of power? Anyone should've been able to colonize and melt the ice, easy. Or is Star Wars ice [insert BSed number]-times as strong as well?
lalop
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

lalop wrote:The actions taken by the Imperial fleet, in turn, make no sense, given this supposed firepower and the behavior of the shield protecting Hoth....I mean, the shield wasn't actually protecting anything at all; why did the Imperials even give a crap about it?
I love how you arbitrarily decide that the rebel shield must've been crap, so turbolasers must be as weak as you want them to be. Yes, Vader's squadron could've BDZ'd the planet out from under the rebels, but that would not have helped. Rather than taking the time load what equipment they could save, the rebels would've just loaded everyone onto transports and they all would've made a run for it at once.

Death Squadron would've had to do the bombardment from the far side of the planet (remember that ion cannon), leaving the escaping rebels a relatively clear sky. Remember, the ground assault was always the plan, Ozzel just muffed things up by dropping out of hyperspace too close to the planet. An Imperial bombardment would've certainly destroyed the base, but the rebel leadership would still have escaped. So in exchange for destroying a little bit more rebel equipment, the empire would've given up any possibility of recovering intelligence or prisoners, leaving them in exactly the same position they were in before they found Hoth.

That's the military justification. The real reason is more likely that Darth Vader was hell bent on capturing certain elements of the rebel leadership, so he sent in ground forces instead of trying to vaporize everybody. He was so obsessed that we even see him lead a squad in the first wave to enter the base.

For that matter (and looking, once again, at the burn map), why is Hoth's cold even an issue, given this level of power? Anyone should've been able to colonize and melt the ice, easy. Or is Star Wars ice [insert BSed number]-times as strong as well?
Wtf are you talking about? The cold wasn't ever really a problem for the rebels. They build their ice caves no problem. There's even a line in there about R2-D2 turning on a heater and accidentally melting Leia's quarters. The one problem they did have was their airspeeders, but that was just because they didn't seem to have the cold weather model and had to make modifications by hand.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."
User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:05 pm UTC

Actually, he's got a point about the Cold. Well, the rebels had to minimize their presence; and so that explains the tauntauns. And adapting to the cold isn't an easy thing if you're a bunch of ragtag rebels; plot armor doesn't protect against frostbite (look at the Jaden Korr books).

And by beyond the energy shield, I think what was meant was beyond the particle shield. The energy shield would still have probably been planetary.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

I'd say SW would win every battle but ST would win the war. Or rather someone from SW would win in each battle. Why? Politics. Humans and Klingons fight because of their differences, whereas Jedi and Sith fight each other as who they are and just have differences to explain that. I'd expect any Jedi/Sith alliance to be broken by a single rhetorical question from a Starfleet captain.
Here's how I see thing going down: (spoilered for silliness)
Spoiler:
Kirk: If: Jimmy, cracked corn; AND nobody cared. Why! does HE keep DOing IT?
Luke: NOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Force grabs lightsaber and tries to strike down the Emperor. Vader blocks. The two duel.
Taranius: What does cracked corn even have to do with stabbing me?! Uses lightning hands on Luke. It chains to Obi-won for 50% damage and a redshirt for 25%. The redshirt is reduced to ash.
Morpheus: Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them. Shark jumps from nowhere and eats Morpheus.
Morpheus: I'm sick of these monkey fighting sharks on this monkey fighting deathstar!
Obi-won: Why'd the lightning hands work on me? I wasn't even angry.
Taranius: You were thinking about masturbation, and that's evil enough.

Yoda: The Star Trek guys, where went to?
Leia: Does this death star have any thermal exhaust ports leading to the core?
Taranius: No the thermal exhaust ports lead to the refrigerator. OF COURSE THEY LEAD TO THE CORE!! It's 10 billion degrees and needs the thermal exhaustion.
Leia: Well do their ships have any stupid weaknesses?
Hot blue Jedi chick: The one with the beard let slip *cough* in bed *cough* that their shields don't work against wave weapons in opposite phase.
Luke: Great, then throw one of 'dem reverse phasey nerf-herders at 'em!
Taranius: incredulously" 'dem reverse phasey nerf-herders"; we shouldn't have blown up Tatooine's schools. Is anyone an engineer?
Imperial technician #4572: I am sir! walks toward emperor and, distracted, misses a hole in ground and falls to his death.

Taranius: Is anyone with a name an engineer?
Chewbacha: ARRAGGAR!!
Luke: I thought you were a smuggler.
Yoda: A general, I thought you were.
Chewbacha: ARRAGGAR!!
Yoda: Things up, that does clear.
Taranius: I'm sorry, we're going to trust our lives to the technically ability of someone who isn't wearing pants! It's a damned Wookie!
Obi-won: Hey! I take offense to that term, my sister is deaf!
Yoda: Not wearing pants, most of us are.
Taranius: Fine, you and I are wearing robes instead of pants; the key point is that our genitals are covered!
Hot blue Jedi chick: Actually my species' genitals are outside of the area covered by my robes.
Taranius: Looks at HBJC sideways Then where exactly.... crosses his legs. Enough of this foolishness! Begone rebel scum! If you wish to put your faith in naked deaf engineers, leave me and do it. We will proceed to crush them with our immeasurable firepower.
Han Solo: Why don't you stand up and say that?

Taranius: What are you doing here? You were supposed to deal with the Klingons!
Han Solo: Done. Challenge one to a duel, shoot it while it's flourishing it's ... "Bak'la'va"I think it was called. Rinse, repeat.
Taranius: Excellent. Apparently you aren''t completely..
Luke (still dueling Vader): No! That's impossible! Taranius gets up and force bitch slaps the two of them.
Taranius: Cease your distraction! Vader you must remove the communists from Vietnam, err.. I mean the federation from Alderon! Every force user in the room looks at the emperor's formerly empty throne. Q sits there, dressed exactly as the emperor.
Imperial officer #9178: How dare you! The Emp.. The officer instantly turns to cake. All of the named imperials and rebels switch places and clothes
Q: Here's the deal: You imperials are now rebels and visa versa. I've rewritten everyone's memories so don't try just switching your clothes back. Unless you meet a very specific set of conditions I will see humanity wiped from the history of this galaxy. Also every time you fail to address me according to the rules of Rosencranz and Guilderstern are dead's questions game many bothans will die.
Luke: Who were Rosencranz and Guilderstern?

An Elizabethan theater troupe appears and first performs Hamlet for context then Rosencranz and Guilderstern are dead.
Luke: Why was a droid playing Polonius?
Han Solo: Might as well ask why water flows upward on Naboo.
Q: Rhetorical! 5 bothans.
Vader: What are these "very specific conditions" we must meet to continue to exist?
Q: I'm not going to tell you. I just thought I'd liven up your day with the thought that each action could destroy everything you know.
Yoda: The Star Trek universe, are you from?
Q: Annoying syntax! 3 bothans. Yes, but I'm usually not an active participant.
Luke: If Jimmy cracked..
Q: Bored! disappears. The cake officer gets better.

Yoda: Right. Off our deathstar, get sith. Sits on throne. Chewbaca, a weapon build to go through the Federation's shields, build. Leia,: over the thermal exhaust ports, put some plywood or something.
Imperial officer: Emperor Yoda! We're surrounded by a small fleet of ships. It looks like their sensors have painted every single one of our thermal exhaust ports!
Han Solo: Well it has been a couple of hours since that Kirk guy disappeared.

Wow, that got away from me. The point is that ST doesn't need to beat SW. SW will beat SW. I also feel that's a good demonstration of what Q would do in such a conflict: something really big but not useful to anybody. Q's not the ace, he's the joker.
The future is a combination of east and down.
User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ariii » Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

What about Star Wars vs. Star Trek vs. Foundation ...? :D
User avatar
Ariii
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby CinnamonOne » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:10 pm UTC

I'd say SW would win every battle but ST would win the war. Or rather someone from SW would win in each battle. Why? Politics. Humans and Klingons fight because of their differences, whereas Jedi and Sith fight each other as who they are and just have differences to explain that. I'd expect any Jedi/Sith alliance to be broken by a single rhetorical question from a Starfleet captain.


Eh. I'd believe ST would count as collateral then...

The Jedi and the Sith wouldn't need to ally. Either faction could utterly destroy the entire Federation.

And the Star Wars Universe still exists, even after the Jedi vs. Sith conflicts (those aren't even the biggest conflicts). I don't see it blowing itself to pieces.

Oh, and go to fanfiction if you want to see the rebels team up with the Feds. It's far too subjective.
CinnamonOne
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby sam_i_am » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Image
User avatar
sam_i_am
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby drewder » Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:31 am UTC

I didn't read most of the posts so I don't know if was brought up but Star Gate universe would wipe out both of them without even trying hard.

Image
drewder
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:47 am UTC

Star wars vs Star Trak any REAL differance???

Postby zlulullort » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:55 pm UTC

So people talk about these movies all the time and fight but I mean arn't they really the same thing???
zlulullort
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

Previous

Return to Religious Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest