Star Wars vs Star Trek

[Kittamaru]

As I said - L-W, along with Saxton and Wong, seem to have a penchant for latching onto the few super-low end examples we see in Trek, such as Pegasus and Survivors, while completely ignoring such things in SW and instead relying entirely on EU... I mean, in the movies, we see examples where blasts from AT-AT's don't even toss snow into the air... where main-cannon shots from a tank (that are able to take down a Naboo Starfighter) aren't powerful enough to leave so much as a 1foot crater on the ground...

Face facts - BOTH sides have incredibly stupid off-center examples that would bring them down to firepower levels on par with your average super-soaker if we consider them to be the be-all end-all... we have to factor out those wild examples and go with more mainstream stuff. It's simply good mathematics.

[Kittamaru]

Oh, you mean 20 Romulan ships can't destroy a planet in an hour, but a shitty ship like the Defiant can do so in under 15 minutes? As said, it was COSMETIC. Not anything serious. It would take 1E25 J to do the planet killing levels of other universes.

Doesn't matter - they said, plain and simple, that the Defiant had the capability to glass the planet. He was willing to stake his life on its ability to do so BEFORE a vastly superior enemy fleet arrived, with a window of less than 15 minutes.

Now, either a main character of the series who is renowned for knowing things that other characters do not know is an absolute suicidal IDIOT, or the Defiant can do exactly what he claims.

Now, perhaps he didn't include the Oceans of the planet in this (which would make sense... you can't glass water). It would take a substantially LONGER time to boil off all the surface water and then glass the seabeds.

[ricrery]

As I said - L-W, along with Saxton and Wong, seem to have a penchant for latching onto the few super-low end examples we see in Trek, such as Pegasus and Survivors, while completely ignoring such things in SW and instead relying entirely on EU... I mean, in the movies, we see examples where blasts from AT-AT's don't even toss snow into the air... where main-cannon shots from a tank (that are able to take down a Naboo Starfighter) aren't powerful enough to leave so much as a 1foot crater on the ground...

The power to destroy the bunker (that was 1 km around) would be in the kilotons range, and the Imperial Star Destroyers are stronger than that.

Face facts - BOTH sides have incredibly stupid off-center examples that would bring them down to firepower levels on par with your average super-soaker if we consider them to be the be-all end-all... we have to factor out those wild examples and go with more mainstream stuff. It's simply good mathematics.

*hint* The Defiant doesn't do 1E25 J! It wouldn't be able to do anything but damage the landscape crust with the time it takes. It takes 20 Romulan ships (STRONGER than Federation ships might I add) an hour to destroy the crust of a planet.

[ricrery]

Doesn't matter - they said, plain and simple, that the Defiant had the capability to glass the planet. He was willing to stake his life on its ability to do so BEFORE a vastly superior enemy fleet arrived, with a window of less than 15 minutes.

Now, either a main character of the series who is renowned for knowing things that other characters do not know is an absolute suicidal IDIOT, or the Defiant can do exactly what he claims.

Now, perhaps he didn't include the Oceans of the planet in this (which would make sense... you can't glass water). It would take a substantially LONGER time to boil off all the surface water and then glass the seabeds.

Let's settle this. It might damage the surface, but not anything on the "destroy the crust, create lakes of lava(maybe it can, but not big ones), boil the ocean, and destroy the atmosphere" level firepower. Romulan ships are stronger than Federation ships.

[Kittamaru]

You are under the incorrect assumption a D'Deredix is stronger than a Defiant - the Defiant class utilizes Pulse Phasers and Quantum Torpedoes, both rapid-fire and highly destructive weapons... that little ship was designed to fight a Borg Cube fer christs sake... I'd wager it is, at the very least, on equal grounds with a D'Deredix in terms of raw firepower, though at the expense of staying power.

And the 20 ship fleet barely scratching the surface - who knows why. However, consider that in TNG, a single phaser on the Ent-D set to around .1% power was able to drill thru the crust of a planet to release CO2 pockets... I wager at 100% it would explosively decouple large areas of the surface of a planet...

Not to mention, the Ent-A was capable of wiping an entire city off the face of the planet (leaving zero trace it existed) with a single shot of it's phasers... unless you want to ASSume scotty was bluffing.

[ricrery]

And the 20 ship fleet barely scratching the surface - who knows why. However, consider that in TNG, a single phaser on the Ent-D set to around .1% power was able to drill thru the crust of a planet to release CO2 pockets... I wager at 100% it would explosively decouple large areas of the surface of a planet...

It took them more than hour to destroy the surface. Plus, megaton weapons are not super destructive. Phasers fires terawatts, terawatts are equal to kilotons. They aren't destructive.

Not to mention, the Ent-A was capable of wiping an entire city off the face of the planet (leaving zero trace it existed) with a single shot of it's phasers... unless you want to ASSume scotty was bluffing.

I bet it was as small as Hiroshima, and I bet the phaser was at full power. Ignoring that, couldn't have the weapons gotten weaker for exploration purposes?

[Kittamaru]

Also, consider that General Order 24 can be carried out in under an hour by a TOS era Starship... and that entails destruction of ALL life on the planet...

[ricrery]

Also, consider that General Order 24 can be carried out in under an hour by a TOS era Starship... and that entails destruction of ALL life on the planet...

Does it also destroy the surface, or do they shoot weapons with a big radius and kill the life on the planet?

[Kittamaru]

As I said - I don't know WHY they made the fleet assault seem so ineffective - we DO know that the Founders were sending back false sensor data in regards to life sign readings - it's entirely possible they were also spoofing the damage readouts. Who knows. It's even possible that Disruptor weapons (which work very differently from Phasers) have lesser effect on planetary surfaces than the tight molecular bonds of Starship hulls (after all, disruptors work by expanding and compressing the target millions of times a second... that wouldn't really do much to mallable materials like earth or water, but to metal, it'd be devastating)

All supposition, but it makes as much sense as anything else when taken in context with the rest of the show...

[Kittamaru]

Does it also destroy the surface, or do they shoot weapons with a big radius and kill the life on the planet?

All I know for sure is:

A) It requires the removal of all life from a planet
B) It requires removal of underground bunkers to facilitate item A
C) It requires the removal of underwater bunkers to facilitate item A

It's 4 am and I have class in 5 hours... bedtime for me

[Sardonic Crisis]

Best of Both Fucking Worlds.

In order to act on something by touch you also allow something to touch you. To have shielding against H2H would be counter-productive to injecting nanites and assimilating; so they rely on a horde to overwhelm and assimilate. When it comes down to it, the risks of H2H are greater for those fighting the Borg. There is nothing to say that projectile weapons would be something to which they can't adapt. The holodeck example fails because the bullet was really a force-field and not truly a kinetic based attack.

Oh, you're wrong. They're omnidirectional, so 32 megatons, and they lose some power to space again, so like 8 megatons lost, for a total of 24 megatons. L-W stated that Quantum torpedoes aren't as powerful as everyone thinks, might want to check up on that.

Did you post his "evidence" recently? If so, what was the post #? If not, provide a link please.

You also neglect the transphasic torpedoes.

He's better than "DER BORG CAN ADAPT TO EVERTING DAR IS HUR HUR" you.

He still failed against me.

Shaka lost to William Wallace(Deadliest Warrior), and he used brute force. That's actually a pretty good example, almost all of his weapons are lethal to Shaka Zulu, but most of Shaka Zulu's weapons are weak against William. Actually, has Shaka Zulu ever shown excluded power? No, he was just a leader of those as competent as him. So power does mean everything.

I can't believe you're using Deadliest Warrior as a source! That show's criterion for winning is only based off of the raw power of the weapons against the defender's ability to absorb the attack. The show fails to take account of strategy or technical prowess. You use a show that utilizes the same criterion of comparing raw power against raw power as you are doing on this forum while neglecting the argument made against the criterion itself.

Here is a little lesson in hopes that it will make you a better debater:

The value you are attempting to support is X (where X is: SW, Halo, or whatever side you are taking). The opposing value is Y (where Y is: ST, Dune, or whatever you are arguing against). You want to judge that A (where A is: X is better than Y). Raw power is the balancing scale used to determine whether X or Y have greater value; this scale is the criterion of your argument. So your criteria is Z (where Z is: that which has more raw power is better). You argue that B (where B is: X has more raw power than Y). Your logical proof is:

Prove A

1 B
2 Z
3 (B & Z) <--> A ("<-->" is a bi-conditional if/then function)
---------------
4 B & Z 1,2
5 A 3,4

I argued that ~Z ("~" means "not") but D (where D is: that which has better strategy and tactics is better).

So my propositions are:

1 ~Z & D
2 [C & (B v ~B)] & [D & (Z v ~Z)] <--> A ("v" means "or")

This left you to prove your proposition of Z or accept ~Z as well as counter D or add another proposition of C (where C is: X has better strategy and tactics than Y). You did none of these. Therefore the argument was modified to this (and I left out the 2nd one above to make it easier):

Prove A

1 ~Z & D
2 B
3 (B & Z) <--> A
----------------
5 ~Z 1
6 B 2
7 B & ~Z 5,6

As you can see, without Z you cannot prove A. Your response was to make X and J equivalent (where J is: William Wallace) as well as Y and K (where K is: Shaka Zulu). The show uses your criteria of Z but does nothing to disprove the claim of ~Z. In fact, I could use 1-3 to disprove A:

Prove ~A

1 ~Z & D
2 B
3 (B & Z) <--> A
-------------------
4 |A
-----------
5 |B & Z 3,4
6 |Z 5
7 |~Z 1
8 ~A 4-7

~A is derived from this because the contradiction of Z & ~Z makes the assumption of A untenable.

B & Z are critical to your position and you've done much to defend B but have neglected the proof of Z. If you expect to declare that A, then you need to have both B & Z.

The problem is, brute force does beat things without tools to beat them.

I'm not saying that brute force cannot win, but that brute force will not win against superior strategy and tactics. Under this criterion it is entirely possible for brute force to win in two ways: If neither side has superior tactics and strategy OR if one side has both brute force and superior strategy and tactics.

[Sardonic Crisis]

Here is how Dune overcomes the supposed "raw power" of either SW or Halo despite the overestimated power figures you give them:

First, Dune has No-Ships that reside in null-space. They are able to select what can exit the field (on stand-by mode they are visible to the naked eye while still being hidden from sensors and prescience; Chapterhouse). This implies the ability to attack while the no-field is active.

SW can't detect cloaking devices and neither can Halo. Even if they are able to find the ship, there is the obstacle of firing into null-space. So they are left blindly firing at something they cannot see or even reach with their "raw power."

Second, Dune has instantaneous travel which means that neither of the opposing universes can predict where the next attack will be.

Third, a planet can be hidden with a no-field by using the star as a power source (Chapterhouse). This means that neither opposing universe will be able to find strategic places to strike with said "raw power." That means the Death Star is a useless weapon.

These three strategic advantages allow Dune to capitalize with hit and run tactics while leaving the opposing universe's "raw power" impotent as Bob Dole without his Viagra.

[ricrery]

Here is how Dune overcomes the supposed "raw power" of either SW or Halo despite the overestimated power figures you give them:

I've already stated those universes aren't my favorites. So, let me use 40k (and I don't give a shit if you say it's not on the list)

First, Dune has No-Ships that reside in null-space. They are able to select what can exit the field (on stand-by mode they are visible to the naked eye while still being hidden from sensors and prescience; Chapterhouse). This implies the ability to attack while the no-field is active.

First, Necron ships can phase in and out of reality, as well as repair themselves on the battlefield. If you manage to damage them hard enough, they can phase out of reality and teleport back to repairs.

SW can't detect cloaking devices and neither can Halo. Even if they are able to find the ship, there is the obstacle of firing into null-space. So they are left blindly firing at something they cannot see or even reach with their "raw power."

HAHA. Star Wars ESB states cloaks exist! God, you're clueless. Necrons say, phase out of reality and wait for them to make their move.

Second, Dune has instantaneous travel which means that neither of the opposing universes can predict where the next attack will be.

Necrons have instantaneous travel too, by the way.

Third, a planet can be hidden with a no-field by using the star as a power source (Chapterhouse). This means that neither opposing universe will be able to find strategic places to strike with said "raw power." That means the Death Star is a useless weapon.

Necrons use stars as power and kill them after a while.

These three strategic advantages allow Dune to capitalize with hit and run tactics while leaving the opposing universe's "raw power" impotent as Bob Dole without his Viagra.

Necrons counter them. Using Viagra as an example for raw power? *slaps Sardonic Crisis* Don't ever do that again.

[Sardonic Crisis]

I've already stated those universes aren't my favorites. So, let me use 40k (and I don't give a shit if you say it's not on the list)

Ok... let's test your argument then...

First, Necron ships can phase in and out of reality, as well as repair themselves on the battlefield. If you manage to damage them hard enough, they can phase out of reality and teleport back to repairs.

That's all well and good that they can phase. Repairing in a fight should be a given necessity, and its only an advantage if the rate of repair is higher than the rate of damage. However, engines and phase tech can be targeted to prevent a retreat.

HAHA. Star Wars ESB states cloaks exist! God, you're clueless. Necrons say, phase out of reality and wait for them to make their move.

1. I never said that SW didn't have the technology for cloaking; I know they do, as evidenced in ESB. I said that they lack the ability to detect a cloak. Big Difference there.

2. So you are already putting the Necrons on the defensive by making them reactive? In Chess, the initiative is a big strategic advantage.

3. Before the Necrons can react, they have to be able to find the threat. If they can't, then they are wasting forces by having them stand idly until there is a barrage of weapon's fire.

Necrons have instantaneous travel too, by the way.

How is this valuable if you have nothing to target?

Necrons use stars as power and kill them after a while.

For what purpose is that power used? Are they able to phase out their planets? If not, then Dune has the advantage of having something to target while the Necrons remain blind.

Necrons counter them. Using Viagra as an example for raw power? *slaps Sardonic Crisis* Don't ever do that again.

1. No, you present this:

a)Necrons can phase and repair.

b)Necrons will sit and wait for something to happen.

c)Necrons have instantaneous travel.

d)Necrons are able to harness the energy of a star.

The only thing that resembles a strategy is b, and that isn't a very good strategy if you can't find the attacker. You do nothing to counter the strategy I presented, but simply list similar tools instead. It's the application of tools that matter (i.e., how the tools are used to provide strategic and tactical advantage). Show me that Necrons are able to detect a phased ship and then you can attempt to counter the advantage.


2. Context man, context! To Bob Dole, Viagra is raw power.

[Sardonic Crisis]

Oh and another thing Ricrery...

Lesson 2-

With your response you have implied a couple of things and weakened your position:

1. By not responding to the criterion argument and arguing against my second post, you imply that you have given up your criteria and accepted mine.

2. You abandon SW and Halo when I present a case against them; this implies that you don't think either value can refute the argument.

3. You make irrelevant points about Necron tech having correlates in Dune. They are irrelevant because they fail to engage the criterion and show their value.

The lesson here is to be careful not to drop key arguments.

[Omega133]

True. But the fact is it would be one well trained guy against at least hundreds of super zombies that jump dozens of meters and can easily toss around 2-4 ton vehicles with a single swap of the arm.

But, it's not just one well trained soldier.

"would have no effect" is A No Limits Fallacy. The Flood spores act on a far faster scale then Borg nanomites as seen in Halo 3. At best the Borg nanomites would be able to slow down Flood infection.

I seriously doubt that. Flood spores are fast, but so is nanomite technology.

[Apocalypse2001]

(This week since I finished an exausting tour, I downloaded and played "Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force" - it was awsome of course -, and I just dl "Star Trek: Elite Force II" which I am going to play later.)

So, since I know the story of the first one, I can say that it doesn't contradict anything in the series. (It's also an official game.)
Of course we haven't seen every single mission of the U.S.S. Voyager. So, considering that, and the fact that it doesn't seem to contradict anything in the timeline, is it canon??
I know for sure that, since EF II is on the Enterprise-E (of which
we have only seen a few missions), it CAN be considered canon (as far as the Ent-E is concerned).

[Apocalypse2001]

............ nanomite technology.

nanoprobes

[Omega133]

We know that Star Wars movies are Canon. We know that EU for Star Wars is only Canon if it doesn't contradict the movies. Do the same rules apply to Star Trek?

[Omega133]

nanoprobes

Y'all northrnrs n' yure fancy talk.

Yeah I guess it would be the proper term. I had the word nanomite in my head from watching the G.I.Joe movie.