Star Wars vs Star Trek

[Saquist]

Infact...
Unless the Imperial forces show up in considerable numbers...say in the multiples of dozens then Federation installations might be able to last against up to Six Star Destroyers maybe Five with no patrol or picket deffenders.

But that all depends on how powerful the heavy Turbo laser is, for the Federation station is just a sitting duck. Lets' say defense and picket ships should be able to hold off a force six ISD's and perhaps even turn them back even if the Primary ship to ship weapons are Galaxy level. The Stations beams combined with the patrol and defenders should be able plow through ISD defense shields like the proverbial hot knife through butter. The station might take heavy damage with Six...and that's considering a starbase 375 type station.

We've also seen planetary beams completely overide shields and go straight for hull and likely Planets like Earth and Vulcan have defense perimeters so ships do not get so close.
DS9 level weaponry would make a mockery of ISD shields and weapons. The phasers are about twice Defiant's Fire power in a second. I can only imagine what Space Dock level weapons would do to a prevailing Fleet of ISD's and fighters.

[TW Scott]

In any case
Considering that that Galaxy over takes the ISD in Fire power, And the Galaxy against a Galor easily disables through shields and Four attack fighters can cripple a galor in seconds it seems that a Eight fighters would be able to bring a ISD to it's knees with repeated straffing runs to get through the shields.

Since the Turbo laser is so inferrior to the Federation Class Ten phaser array and the Cardassians beam weapons were one shot one kill...the Federation Fighter Pilots would have be cautious of taking to many hits from the anti fighter weapons.

A conflict like this could have Star Fleet reliying on it's fighter defense more than I originaly thought. If fighters are going to be this effective in long term engagements it could make for some exciting Fleet clashes....

Are you kidding? The total ouptut of the Federation Galaxy class Warp core is 12.5 billion gigawatts Even if that is half the power of the ship, the total power for the ship is 25 billion gigawatts per second. The power output of one Heavy Turbolaser is 60.5 billion gigawatts per second. That means the typical Capital ship weapon of SW produces more that twice the power of one the most powerful ships in the Federation.

It's simple canon math.

[antaran_1979]

He did kill a large group of jedi single handly. Well he can't be on mutiple systems at the same time, he can destory a couplr of squadrons of fighters single handly. They did send Anakin to bases to destory bases ( seen in clone wars ). Anakin Skywalker is only 19 at the beginning of the clone wars, come on do you expect a teenager to take out a huge army? no! And it would take a while to kill all the dark jedi, come on he is just a teenager when clone wars begun, if you mean the whole modren US army vs Anakin Skywalker, Anakin would win but it would take a while, if you give him a platoon of ARCs with him, he can beat the US in about a couple of months. If he can fly his starfighter vs the US he can wipe out the US airforce.

actually i don't expect anyone to kill an entire army on their own. Anakin had some black-painted clones (i asume elite) to asist him. how many were they? a batalion? brigade? and since most of the jedi-generals were away, most of the jedi in the temple were probably administratives or pupils.

[antaran_1979]

Actually a Diamond has no crystilline structure. It's one large molecule. It's cut by literally shearing carbon bonds by using the molecules own hardness against it.

We have seen that the outer hull of the common federation ship is between 8 and twelve inches. The ships design seems to be more for some twisted aesthetic rather than functional. Really the first functional starship design form the Federation is definately the Defiant with Voyager and her landing struts a close sencond. Though for mimum profile, maximum armor protection and fair amount of volume, the Defiant is the best the UFP has built.


By the way the tritanium hull was close to melting one of the few times the Enterprise-D was in atmosphere. Even with the shielding on and stable the friction was getting dangerously clsoe to melting temperature as ops told Geordi several times.

the diamond is defacto an example of covalent crystal structure.

as for the designs of ships in SF (not just in ST or SW)i have to agree. we seldom see functional designs. actually i favor the basic ISD layout . i'd just loose the command tower. this would severaly decrease my z-axis+ aspect and gave me allmost 270 degrees firing arc in the dorsal section.
in ST (UFP) the difiant is the desigh that makes most sence when pure combat role is being percieved. the only reason (in world not IRL) why ST ships apear to follow similar paterns would be hull geometry that is implied (but not 100% confirmed) plays a role in warp field geometry or is strongly afected by it. even with such seamingly "fragile" design, their hulls often exibit exeption resistance. E-D did crush land on reserve power and auxilary thrusters alone. actually there are 2 reasons why the hull did not begin to melt like it did under Geordi's command .
1. the hull was upgraded (overhouled) with better armour (possibly new production method for casting duranium-tritanium)
2. Geordi was speeding through the atmosphere for some reason (probably to encourage Echo-Papa to make direct pursuit) while E-D saucer in ST VII glided it's way trough at lower speed and/or better landing curve.

[antaran_1979]

Okay, so you are operating under the theory that the front viewer NEVER shows anything at beyond a magnification of one. Alright interesting to know you don't takes occam's razor into account.

........

.........
Third we see in the Tactical Display that a photon torped super imposed on the the Asteroid was still of substantial size.

Forth we know the Worm hole is cuased by the imbalance in the Warp engines. That from the camera angles we get that the wormhole is not much beifgger than Enterprise.

.........
Sixth We know that Photon Torpedoes travel at sublight sppeds.

Seven Doppler has the opposite you explain. When an objest is appraocing speed of light the the view in front narrows and the light bunches up and appears red. When it is heading away is when you see the blue.

Now please re read my explanation of why the glow seems to shrinnk and even fade out.

1. we do get an external vew of the asteroid at the same frame with Enterprise when the torpedo flies of. thus any magnification shown later on does not deviate much.

3. the tactical view often shows objects in an inproportiaonal manner. (like the neutral zone entry vector in ST2 or the V'Ger clowd entry in ST1.

4. so true. however there is no way of knowing hof far does the warp field extend outside ships hul/nacells. tactical indicators and engeneering desplays often contradict. we see the field spread anywhere from 1/5 to 2/3 the ship's lenght. and since they might offer a simbolical representation only we just can'y know for shure.

6 that we do. however sublight can be anything from 0.0001 m/s up to 0.99 c.

7.nope this is where you probably got confused. i'm shure you are aware of the red-shift we see when we observe distant galaxies heading away from us at high often near-c speeds.

[antaran_1979]

Are you kidding? The total ouptut of the Federation Galaxy class Warp core is 12.5 billion gigawatts Even if that is half the power of the ship, the total power for the ship is 25 billion gigawatts per second. The power output of one Heavy Turbolaser is 60.5 billion gigawatts per second. That means the typical Capital ship weapon of SW produces more that twice the power of one the most powerful ships in the Federation.

It's simple canon math.

we have (objectivly speaking) at least two problems with this.

1. that value for the GCS core power output is stated as GW per second???!!! taht's apsurd. it could mean either a serious blunder from Data (strange i know) or a change of output, like the rate of their power output increase or decrease.
2. E-D at that time is in orbit. It's not even under warp power. it's shields are down. weapon system inactive.

3. the only asteroids SEEN being blasted (not vapourised) in ESB are 12m long at best. i must emphasize seen, since the books may say otherwise. the energy emissions visible sugest "cold" transition of states (similar to phasers). i still don't have those caps from RoTJ (my new job's a bitch). but those caps might help establish the diferent "calibers" ISD fires. i'd guess the berbette cannons to be maybe 28-30 times stronger then the bolts fired at the falcon, which are in their own turn 8-12 times stronger then the ones used on the 6m asteroids. i can't find the ISD model they used i aNH to make esemates on their trenchal quad batteries and main dual guns.

[antaran_1979]

i've just re-read your argument on the torpedo. it just makes nosence mate. the light still needs the same time to reac us. all the celestial objects we see are shpherical and we don't see less of them just because they are far off or headin away. the effect you mention reminds me of the fenomena known as gravity lence. but there is no reason to asume such linear distortions in this case. if they launched a quantum singularity instead of a torpedo maybe ?

[antaran_1979]

i've been digging stuff on the net (bless the launch break) trying to find comparable scenes of ships blasting asteroids. i was surprised how often people take up for granted what the see on ST VS SW and Stardestroyer.net.

so after doing some inital size estemates i desided to visit Wongs chart for asteroid blasting. i was mostly interested in the low values it gives for the enegy required to blast away kilometerers of rock. and then i found this under the same chart:
"it is projected that a 1 kiloton buried explosive will fragment a 100m diameter asteroid (based on experiments with terrestrial igneous rock), a 1 megaton explosive will fragment a 1km diameter asteroid, and a 1 gigaton explosive will fragment a 10km diameter asteroid. Using these figures as a basis, we can produce an approximation Y = (d/100)³"

the key word here that many (including Wong himself omits) is BURIED. this means that all the energy will be released at once INSIDE the body, preferably the center. in other words, if you detonate a warhead inside the asteroid it will fragment it. if you detonate it on the surface or in a shallow hole it will just dent it. so the next time you hear that a mountaign of rock might need only 10mt to be blasted, do take of notice that it might be so but under very special conditions. to ilustrate how off can the actual energy required for these activities be in reality here is the following example:

the metheor crater in Arizona desert is 1200m wide and 170m deep. it was formed by 50m metheor impact that directed a 2.5 mt blast at the rock, which in its own right created a 6mt atmospheric shockwave. only a small amount of the 175 million tons of rock blasted was vaporised. most of it was scattered away. if we take the granite values from the charts it torns out to be equivalent of 520m sphere of rock in matherial. the chart estemates the fragmentation energy at mear 140kt !!!! granted this formula predicts large debries, but the diference is 17.8 times in energy!!! quite the margine of error. this allso disputes the cratering values. there is no way to drill a 170m hole with a 0.88kt explosion. actuall the explosion will always disperce most of the energy away. thus the craters are more wide then deep.

now what brought me to this small research? it was th "Pegasus" incident. in that epizode Riker claims that they will need more then 200 torpedoes to destroy an iregular (in shape) rocky asteroid which is some 7km long 5km wide and unknown depth. i got these values from another site (they are not mine), but i have the eposode at home so i'll check it out. most people have used similar estemates on the Wong's chart. if we asume an equivalent sphere it would have bean some 5.5km in diameter. sounds easy right? the chart spits out 166.4mt as the energy requred to destroy it to 100m bits or less. some have even sugested that since there are caverns in it it should be easier. well it's not that easy. even the torpedo could be detonated in the center its still not so easy. this type of non homgenous steroid is most likely to simply snap along the iregularities and caverns, waisting away most of the energy of the blast. if we presume surface bombardement, the number of X mt warheads required can not be possibly determined. if we asume (i hate these asumptions) total asteroid abliteration (into small <1m rubble) , by 250 torpedoes, it's up to each torpedo to obliterate around 350 million cubic meters of rock or equivalent of a 873m asteroid. kind of brings new perspective to the subject. this is afcourse a bit overlown estemate since it presumes a "plastic" asteroid. the real life scenario is much more complex. the big asteroid is likely to start fragmenting early on into fragments of variable shapes and sizes. so maybe more ammo will be neaded to hunt down these fragments, or maybe less if the fragments are small enough to insure no salvageble parts of Pegassus can be optained. seaing how the crucial part was a 1m object and Obert is a small ship (some 150x80m) we can only speculate what is the safe chunk size.

[Hellblade8]

Okay, lets try this again. B'lanna is an engineer who receive high marks in her first few years in starfleet. Slapping together a class one or two shuttle would be cake for her. Seven of Nine was Adjunct for her sector, Borg tend to only pick the best for that and she would have experience overseeing building of vessels. Harry Kim is a science genius and so on.

Also since they had several disassembled shuttles to work with many of the part they needed were already fabricated. All they had to do was tinker with basic design, which is made super easy when you can practice in the holodeck. A shuttle is a far cry from a Starship.

This is wrong. B'lanna was not said to know how to design a shuttle, and it wasn't a modification. In fact, even after Paris had supposedly "designed" it, they still had to come up with basic ideas for thrusters and such. Not to mention they had to incoperate mutlispatial technology, photonic missiles, and a few other designs. In fact, even after they had finished, it had a flaw in the hull.

As for the fleet numbers. You will note that except for certain legendary ships like Enterprise and Defiant that the Ident numbers seem to run by class not order built.

That's an exception to the rule, and would actually mean there are more ships than the registration number tells us. However, the USS Defiant (constitution class) and the USS Defiant (Defiant class) displayed different numbers.

While I do not doubt there were 6000 ships in one fleet there is something inherenatly wrong with the idea that they all are 6000 ships strong. First of all if their were 60,000 ships why did not more intercept the Borg at Wolf 359 or at Earth?

This is Starfleet, most of their ships were stretched out too thin to be able to reach earth at that point. Furthermore, they had thought they would have had more time, given that it would have taken at least two years for the Enterprise D to return at max warp (something a starship couldn't hold for more than half a day).

And in the second invasion, we saw only the end battle. We were told there was one fleet that engaged the Borg, which would have been 6,000 starships, each one likely joining at a later point in time as the Borg were crossing through Federation space. To further this point, the damage to the cube was so extensive, that it was ready to collapse by the time the Enterprise E had arrived. Given this, and what we see in BOBW, this would probably match up pretty well.

There should have been thousands of ships. Also if there were 60,000 ships why was it so terrible and devastating to the Federation that they were losing 4 ships here, 5 ships there during the Dominion war.

In the opening battle of the dominion war, they were losing ship engagements in the hundreds, with the Dominion ship yards at full capacity, while their own were destroyed from raid after raid.

Outside of a few battles in the Dominion war we never, ever see more than two dozen ships being called up for any particular important duty.

Because they're spread out on missions, and sent to protect thousands of planets that make up the Federation. Not to mention that before the first Borg invasion, they kept most of their ships spread out.

I think you will find that 6,000 ships represented the Federation putting all the ships it could spare in one place and making a go of it. From all we have seen it is likely all told the Federation probably has 12,000 ships a third of which are Runabouts.

Sorry, but this goes against everything we know. If this counted, then the Federation would have deployed them against other starships in the war. In fact, the only time we see them used was on DS9, which suggests that at most, they are only made for stations. Given the limited functions that a runabout could perform, this matches up with what we see. Even the Defiant had limited facilities at its size, and you're suggesting that a Runabout is starship?

[Saquist]

It's true the Federation was losing ships in the hundreds attempting to adapt to Dominion weapons.

[Hotspur]

Seven Doppler has the opposite you explain. When an objest is appraocing speed of light the the view in front narrows and the light bunches up and appears red. When it is heading away is when you see the blue.

This is completely wrong. The phenomenon in question functions exactly opposite of your above description.

A redshift occurs as the wavelength gets longer, becoming more and more pronounced as the distance between object and observer increases.

We know that distant galaxies are moving away from us because they appear redshifted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

A blue shift occurs when the wavelength gets shorter, or "bunches up."

Scott, I don't intend to flame you, but I must ask you this question: Are you genuinely interested in debating, or are you simply being antagonistic, taking the opposite position even when that position is clearly wrong?

Your arguments suggest that you lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of physics and scientific principles:

You don't understand the Doppler effect.

You erroneously argued that trees act as "cushions" during a crash landing when, in fact, they actually worsen the damage sustained during a crash.

You didn't know that a watt equals one joule per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

It's one thing to debate how a fictitious phenomenon might work when our understanding of that phenomenon is fuzzy and incomplete. After all, very few of us in here are physicists, engineers, or scientists. But we actively seek to fill the gaps in our knowledge. And we don't reject correction and continue to argue points that are clearly wrong as you do.

I'll ask you once more: Are you interested in a genuine debate or are you simply an antagonist? Please answer honestly so we can act accordingly.

[Kittamaru]

*chuckles* hotspur, I'll take the initiative and answer that:

TW Drunk... er... Scott... is a self absorbed, self righteous imbecile who has no right to be on the internet, much less a debate forums. He has shown intelligence that is on par with the average banana slug and is about as articulate when he starts being proven wrong.

In short, set him to ignore. His posts are VERY rarely worth reading... much less the 8 or 9 times he posts the same fanboy wank-trash.

[Saquist]

This is completely wrong. The phenomenon in question functions exactly opposite of your above description.

A redshift occurs as the wavelength gets longer, becoming more and more pronounced as the distance between object and observer increases.

We know that distant galaxies are moving away from us because they appear redshifted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

A blue shift occurs when the wavelength gets shorter, or "bunches up."

Scott, I don't intend to flame you, but I must ask you this question: Are you genuinely interested in debating, or are you simply being antagonistic, taking the opposite position even when that position is clearly wrong?

Your arguments suggest that you lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of physics and scientific principles:

You don't understand the Doppler effect.

You erroneously argued that trees act as "cushions" during a crash landing when, in fact, they actually worsen the damage sustained during a crash.

You didn't know that a watt equals one joule per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

It's one thing to debate how a fictitious phenomenon might work when our understanding of that phenomenon is fuzzy and incomplete. After all, very few of us in here are physicists, engineers, or scientists. But we actively seek to fill the gaps in our knowledge. And we don't reject correction and continue to argue points that are clearly wrong as you do.

I'll ask you once more: Are you interested in a genuine debate or are you simply an antagonist? Please answer honestly so we can act accordingly.

I agree. I don't understand how he could have gotten that more wrong as he has a pretense of being beyond correction. Redshift occurs on light moving away from us.

As in with Quasars that are moving at incredible speeds at incredible distances yet have attachements to Galaxies which are not moving at nearly that velocity. Those are refered to as Red shift Riddles.

In Think TW's record speaks volumes.
The lying to escape error in knowledge
manuvering to disassociate a path of reasonable logic.
Incapable of correction.

It's why he's on the ignore feature and not the buddy feature. Talking With Scott seems more a waste of time and effort than productive or creative. That is not a flame but an objective criticism of someone that has butted heads against hiim before.

[TW Scott]

This is completely wrong. The phenomenon in question functions exactly opposite of your above description.

A redshift occurs as the wavelength gets longer, becoming more and more pronounced as the distance between object and observer increases.

We know that distant galaxies are moving away from us because they appear redshifted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

A blue shift occurs when the wavelength gets shorter, or "bunches up."

Sorry was confusing this with something else, as well as all the visuals you see in the warpfield in start trek episodes.

However my anology of why you see less light from something moving away is correct. So the radiance of the torpedo as it hits the asteroid would not appear to be four meters wide as we would not actually recive most of that light.

Scott, I don't intend to flame you, but I must ask you this question: Are you genuinely interested in debating, or are you simply being antagonistic, taking the opposite position even when that position is clearly wrong?

Actually, I am taking the correct postion on the war even if a few small details I get accidently wrong. I do not mean to mislead anyone. Everytime i have made an error i have apologized and corrected it.

You don't understand the Doppler effect.

I did understand it, I accidently reverse the two colors. And I apologize. However the doppler effect had nothing to do with actually seeing less light from the torpedo as i explained with several anologies.

You erroneously argued that trees act as "cushions" during a crash landing when, in fact, they actually worsen the damage sustained during a crash.

You didn't know that a watt equals one joule per second.

Okay, That I did understand. 1 watt is one joule per second. There were people here however who were using watts as a measure of power rather that as a rate the power flows. I was trying to explain for some time that 1 watt second is one joule like 1 watt minute is 60 joules or 60 watts maintianed for one second is 60 joules or 60 watts for a minute is 3600 joules. They were just not getting that a joule was a discreet measurment of energy that does not require time rate. A joule, much like a calorie can just hang about, where as watts are just how fast the energy is flowing.

It's one thing to debate how a fictitious phenomenon might work when our understanding of that phenomenon is fuzzy and incomplete. After all, very few of us in here are physicists, engineers, or scientists. But we actively seek to fill the gaps in our knowledge. And we don't reject correction and continue to argue points that are clearly wrong as you do.

First of all I am an electrician, so I do have a good understanding of physics, chemistry and engineering. Currently I am under some amount of stress as I am taking care of a terminally ill father. That means I might make some mistakes like the red-blue mix up. Which is only excacerbated by trusting some visuals in Star Trek . I am willing to debate and have provided a lot of evidence in the past.


Now, to just bring it into perspective and I will use canon on both side and not use Survivors...

Power output of Enterprise D warp core 12,500,000,000,000,000,000 watts. That translates to 12,500,000,000,000,000,000 joules per second or 2,987,571,701,720,841,300.2 thermochemical calories per second or 2,987,571,701.72 tons of TNT per second or 2.987 gigtons of TNT per second

That is the most powerful source of energy on a Galaxy class starship. It comprises of at least half the enrgy generation capability on the the Enterprise D.

Fire Power of the Heavy Turbolaser. 12.5 gigatons = 12,500,000,000 tons of TNT= 12,500,000,000,000,000,000 thermochemical calories= 52,300,000,000,000,000,000 joules= 52,300,000,000,000,000,000 watt seconds.

This is the most power tactical weapon carried by Star Wars fleets. the super laser has a much higher yeild, but that is a more a strategic weapon.

[TW Scott]

i've just re-read your argument on the torpedo. it just makes nosence mate. the light still needs the same time to reac us. all the celestial objects we see are shpherical and we don't see less of them just because they are far off or headin away. the effect you mention reminds me of the fenomena known as gravity lence. but there is no reason to asume such linear distortions in this case. if they launched a quantum singularity instead of a torpedo maybe ?

Okay, this is where the communication fails. You are claming a 4 meter visible width on a photon torpedo. At close range I do not disagree as the photon shielding does indeed glow to that radius. However that radius is not the light source, the torpedo is the light source. The light travels in a straight line. At first you can see a large radiance becuase you are close and many, many more of the photons are making it to you. As the torpedo moves away less of the light is making it's way to you becuase an angle of interception has changed.

For an example we'll use a sprinkler. Now the sprinkler sprays water in a 360 degrees. Stand next to it and you may take up as much as 180 degrees of that arc. You are getting bombarded by a lot of water. Now step back a few steps. You are now taking up a smaller part of the circumference, though you are same size. Some of the water that had been hiting you before is now missing you completely. Step even farther back and even more water misses you. The ssprinkler is still puting out the same amount of water, but now only a tiny fraction is reaching you. Now imagine that water hitting you is photns reaching your retina.

Does that help you at all?

[TW Scott]

we have (objectivly speaking) at least two problems with this.

1. that value for the GCS core power output is stated as GW per second???!!! taht's apsurd. it could mean either a serious blunder from Data (strange i know) or a change of output, like the rate of their power output increase or decrease.
2. E-D at that time is in orbit. It's not even under warp power. it's shields are down. weapon system inactive.

It was quoted by Data in True Q and he did not go on to state that they were in low power mode or anything. Yes, the power output does seem odd to be listed that way, but it does mesh with other lines in other shows. It also may be the way the Federation rates the warp core by Gigawatts like Consumer's energy prefers to deal with kilowatt hours.

Data was just stating a power level. Unlike Geordi he would not be able to discern how ramped up the warp core is at the moment. He could make an educated guess, but such a rounded number implies that the ship was rated to produce that much power in normal operation mode. After all a good engineer can squeeze more when needed.

[Flectarn]

http://stationatomica.com/164/ultima...-series-droids

Best VS. comparision ever

[Kittamaru]

It was quoted by Data in True Q and he did not go on to state that they were in low power mode or anything. Yes, the power output does seem odd to be listed that way, but it does mesh with other lines in other shows. It also may be the way the Federation rates the warp core by Gigawatts like Consumer's energy prefers to deal with kilowatt hours.

Data was just stating a power level. Unlike Geordi he would not be able to discern how ramped up the warp core is at the moment. He could make an educated guess, but such a rounded number implies that the ship was rated to produce that much power in normal operation mode. After all a good engineer can squeeze more when needed.

Data could tell the EXACT watts per second output of the warp core... he knows the ship far better than Geordi does. That makes Geordi the superior engineer is his ability to reason his way through problems in ways that Data was just beginning to understand.

[Kittamaru]

In a fight I am fairly sure I could take C3PO and R2 together. If things were going badly I would just back away 20 feet to catch my breath and wait the 5 minutes it would take them to reach me again. On the other hand, Data’s soulless yellow eyes would watch passionlessly as he ripped all of my limbs off and threw them 400 yards into a dumpster.

That's from the website just posted... I nearly wet myself laughing XD

[SkywalkerJedi]

beams combined with the patrol and defenders should be able plow through ISD defense shields like the proverbial hot knife through butter. The station might take heavy damage with Six...and that's considering a starbase 375 type station.

We've also seen planetary beams completely overide shields and go straight for hull and likely Planets like Earth and Vulcan have defense perimeters so ships do not get so close.
DS9 level weaponry would make a mockery of ISD shields and weapons. The phasers are about twice Defiant's Fire power in a second. I can only imagine what Space Dock level weapons would do to a prevailing Fleet of ISD's and fighters.[/QUOTE]

ISDs, you are forgetting the Cruisers. Remember in Clone Wars, they have mini Star Destoryers, they are called Attack-Cruisers. I personally think Ventors are more powerful, and they have more escorts.( the Ventors might me better because they might cost more and the Empire don't want to waste money, the Empire does have LIMITED credits )Here is some infomation on Ventors.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Venat...Star_Destroyer
You can't destory 6 Ventors because it have escorts, and they fight in huge fleets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtLGBeg131k
Here is an example of their fleet size ( the cruisers are too small to be visible ) Crusiers do exist they used it at the Battle of Mon-Carmeri ( clone Wars )
If they want to attack Coruscant and take it over, not a chance. Coruscant is guarded by battlestations with heavy guns, heavier then most Star Destoryers ( i don't mean ISDs ), and it is guarded 24/7 by a massive fleet ( thats only in the Imperial and Clone Wars era ). The Ventors will win aginst a Star Trek spacestation.