Star Wars vs Star Trek

And dont' appologize for my Antaran... I have nothing to appologize for. Scotch is spouting his useless rabble rabble again even though it's been proven without a doubt Trek would win. Not easily... not even quickly... but they would.

Perseverance. Something the Empire doesn't know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. did they state the distance from the stardrive? i have to rewatch that...

2.i think it was designed to be used to evac the civilians to safety as the stardrive fought the enemy.

3.since it was a fed maintenence techincian that did it, i see not why a fully trained engeneer or scientist would not acomplish it.

4.you should see it from this point, a GCS is the smallest ship from it's class in the area but it is at least as powerfull as its oposition (D'Deridex). it seams size does not metter after all.

5. agreed, a mobile starbase would come in extreamly heandy, with all those heavy phasers and thousands of torpedoes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think the Intrepid was the first cruiser sized vessel designed to do it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

never the less, a sprouted insult insults the insulter and in this case the group it belongs to. we must remain civil.

 

the advantace of a huge battle ship like lets say a SSD is just because it can be seen as a mobile starbase lol. imagine if the feds have a SSDsize like ship. as they launch a few dozen galaxy-class ships to attack they can be used to defend the smaller vessels and the galaxy's can dock to reload there ammo. Let's say they used p there 200+ torps then they just get close to the battleschip and beam a up a new load before rejoining the rest of the galaxy's in battle.
Allthough the SSD was build for scare tactics rather than actual battle it could be vital to win a massive battle.

As for big ships landing on the surface just take a look at attack of the clones. you can drop you troops on the surface in huge amounts. Bare in mind that there are a lot of things interfering with transporters. that's why picard used the shuttle in the first place.

although when we assume those trans. torps to be like smart boms i don't see the use of them on the deathstar. Why didn't the rebels fire torps at the deathstar ???? because they wouldn't even hit the deathstar. Even if they could penetrate the shield they just would be taken out by the turbolazers.

the probelm with most scenes is that are there to impress the fans but actual would be just plain stupid in real combat.
Why dose luke have to fly through a trench when he could just be hanging in space 100% straight above the exhaust.

 

5.we have no idea where the vilage and the river are respectively. after all destroying Hoover Dam won't flood DC.



the river run just beside the town and the water is very high. so the village must be lower than the dam. because they are walking just a few hours the dam could not be very far from the village. if you look at the amount the waterlevel droped in the lake in the short amount of time (it's still daytime ) heheheh. my conclusion is that the millions of liters of water would have wiped the village away. but it is like you say for 'coolness' lol.

 

but is it the same river? i really have no clue. i don't even bother with that actually :shrug:

 

1.i don't really agree with this. i doubt a SSD sized vessel capable of storing dozens of ST battleships would actually be any good in tactical engagements. it would be far to expensive but far to vulnerable. take a look at the aircraft carrier, the only reason it is any good is because it extends the range of the airwing. hence for such a ship to be even remoatly usefull it would need to be similar to the Guild Highliners or Farcaster Dodecahedrons, i.e. instatravel strategic deployment platforms. as far as suply goes, you don't need such high asset target to do it. small stelthy runners would be far more cost efficient.
for all other purposes the size of ships is largely a matter of doctrine. i don't say large ships don't have their own uses, i even prefered them in early MOO1 campaigns, however the hive tactics give their own advantages too.

2. but you see, the Feds never did need any large scale landers. they never fought any large ofensive wars till the Dominion War. besides i still think making your dropships as big as the Republic Cruisers is utter folly. one gets destroyed and you lose batalions or even divisions of troops. dropships are by default fast and small, as to overwealm enemy's capability to intercept/target all. did they use carrier or dreadnought sized transports to land troups in any war in human history?

3. i doubt those slugish turbolasers could hit a torpedo, they could not hit an X-Wing. besides transphasic torps bypas defences by phasing out of continuum. if they can pass through shields and superstructure without interaction, why would a TL bolt hit them even if you can get i firing solution?

4. good point there. maybe he had to fly to avoid being fried by the point defence?

 

rar

 

i'm not saying he has to hang still or even fly in a straight line. Just why the hell travel 10minutes rough a trench when you just need a quick run. He could just program the target in the computer or let r2d2 fire if necessary. but it is cooler to use the force i guess. lmao

 

nah i really don't care either but sometimes TTrekkies get so picky on futile things that i sometimes do the same with ST. There are so much things where the writers are just don't think a littlebit farther. It would have been so much more impressive when data goes unther water and when you him reapearing in the middle of the lake and start floating in the air because he's on top of the holodeckship raising up from the water.

as would it be more impressive when worf takes the bazooka and gun's down a ship. in the wreck they could find the pilot and beverly still could scan him.

a so there are a lot of things that could make better with a little though on their part.

 

While the Galaxy wasn't designed for terristrial (spelling) landing to say that it uses massive amounts of energy in mirco gravity is a massive exaggeration. Merely making orbit puts any ship under micro gravity freefall. The Enterprise has engaged many targets in Orbit, fully powering shields and weapons with no sign of distress and many times has maintained alert status while in oribit.

Your pension for hyperbole is unmatched, as usual.

 

And this is why you are not actually a general or admiral. An SSD sized vessel flying is SUPPORT of a fleet of vessels is the last thing from vulnerable. Any attempts to engage it mean running through the fleet, which tears you to bits. Any attention paid to it is attention not paid to vessels closer to you. Unfortunately ignoring it is not an option as it carries weapons far surperior to any your little ship posesses. It's a double whammy. Ignore it and it smashes your fleet by destroying them while they are engaged with their equal. Engage it and the fleet it supports rips you apart before you can mount a credible attack.

Okay so you did not get that the Troop carriers of the Clone Wars were the best of both worlds? You still had to dropships, assault shuttles and other delivery craft for fast delivery to create beach heads in hot zones, but if your target's antiship capability is taken out why not land a vessel and disgorge a division in moments. It's the best of both worlds.

Actually according to SW canon firing a tordpedo from farther away that 600 yeards is practically useless against a Capital ship as they can easily destroy any incoming torpedos.

Secondly Transphasic torpedos would still be affected by tractor beams as phased devices still are. Also of note that transphasic torpedoes may not continue to exist as the timeline that created them is no longer valid and Temporal Prime Directive would have the federation destroying said devices.

 

If it was within 100 km , then according to most canon info we have there would have been NO crash landing, just dead people in space.

One of the design reasons yes, but the most common reason for seperation is core breach as life pods are not quick enough.

A fed maintenace technician did move it, but only after noticing much to his amazement that something so large had the structural integrity to be moved. He only had to shield the sections base added since it's original construction. So while of feds could move that one base, none semed all that interested in building another mobile one.

Actually GCS gets it power from very reckless engineering. If you watch through the shows they show how the GCS was built if flagrant violation of several dozen of starfleet engineering protocols. But still it's nothing compared to civillian owned Star Wars vessels.

Yes, Star base one could actually pose a threat to a nebulan B frigate if the former was mobile.

 

1.a large vessel is vulnerable cause you put too much resources and people in it. you may get increased performance, but should you lose it all those resources are gone. if 10 ships suffer 50% casulties you can still salvage the rest, if 1 ships gets 50% busted you may or may not be able to retreat. your point with the submarine is a great example.

2.i know, i just think a planetary assult has greater chances of sucess if performed by 100s ir 1000s of smaller vessels then by dozens of large ones.
the clone assult ships (the ones used to evac the jedi) in AotC is what i have in mind.

3.yeah i know, but it is there never the less.

4. good point there

 

1. lol, tell that to the USN mate. it became aperant even in WW2 that large ships are not worth the risk. just suplement that huge useless hulks o fmetal with large number of smaller units. you get both manouverbility and flexibility. your large units will alwways be the prefered taget of choice for enemy fighters/attack craft.

2.ah but once the safe zones are established transporters are safe to use so in ST you don't need large planetary transports. well not initially anyways.

3.well acording to SW canon a SW torpedo may be a subject of SW point defence. however visual examples bring even that fact into suspision.

4.bah even if they have the time to use their tracors they might not get a lock. or the torps could overwealm the tractors. on the other heand transphasic torps don't realy time travel so no paradoxes here.

 

1. heh, however both the stardrive and the saucer were visible in the same frame. i doubt a 600X400m objetc is clearly visible from 100km and the movie is canon, they did not die, so here is your example.

2.i thought the primary prosedure for warp core breatch is ejection. i wonder if being shot by disrupters and torpedoes is allso considered "standard"?

3.good point there. got to give a hand to thise Cardassians. it does not say that feds can't do that though, it just sais they don't. i guess they do not build their bases movable.

4.if GCS is a violation i wonder how the newer designes would be classified. but hey, allthough allthroughout the TNG the GCS was very unstable, during the Dominion War it sufered 0 casulties, which means they re-tuned the baby properly. the Romulans wished they'd done the same with their warbirds.

5.haha, no comment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Galaxy suffered one visible casualty in the second battle of Chintoka with the loss of the Entire Allied Fleet, a Galaxy Class Stardrive is seen floating behind the remains of Defiant.

Apparently the warp core is not as unstable as TNG made it appear.

 

More drabble scotch...

 

We dont' need a starbase... our shuttles would do just fine

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!