Star Wars vs Star Trek

Most problems in TNG were of plot-device standards none the less

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then again... there's the fact that ships in Star Wars seem to be disabled after one or two grazing shots with sub-kiloton weapons...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i missed that one thanx

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i know TNG had cripled the GCS for plot devices, but we have to consider them canon never the less. so in trek history it would be stated that GCS suffered from unstable warp core in the years from its comission up to the Dominion War or somewhat prior, however it was later rettwicked and recalibrated to make the ship very resistant to battledamage and the core one of the most stable in the fleet.

BTW, HAPPY NEW YEAR every one!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:cheers:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Course it was re-designed - the Sovereign and Defiant warp cores showed the way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Unfortunately plot devices are still canon. Much like how Dominion jem H'dar fighter seem to fly through larger vessels like tissue paper.

There is no fact here as you do not see a single sub megaton weapon even affect anything larger than a parade fighter.

 

The Sovereign warp core is more durable, but over all less powerfull. The ship's superiority is the plethora of auxilliary reactors used and the ability of the ship to bypass the warp drive completely. It's still crippled if the warp core is jettisoned, but hey not everything is perfect. The Defiant Warp core is just a GCS warp core without all the extraneous space.

If you actually knew anything about Star Trek warp cores you might very well be able to join the discussion.

 

Funny, by your reasoning we would not have Aircraft carriers. Besides you are forgetting somehting. We are talking a fundamentla defensive difference. Currently today a squadron of F-14's has a credible chance against a Aircraft carrier. In SW a squadron of X-wings has NO CHANCE versus a Star Destroyer. However a Squadron of X-Wings flying screen for a Nebulaon B-Frigate go towards evening the odds.

But to pound the point home. Say you have two fleets of equal capability. Fleet A star bases is stationary and cannont be moved strategically. It can be moved a short distnace tactically but that is it. FLeet B has an equvalnet base except that it can move both Strategically and tactically. Which side will win?

Provided the enemy is not running any sort of sensor interference at all. Transporters are notoriously sensitive.

Actually, no. We have never seen a torpedo in movies fired more than 100 meters. The books were quite clear that 600 meters was required distance away.

SW tractor beams do not require a lock, merely a hit and are much more accurate tha turbo lasers and ion cannons.

And yes the transphasics were the result of time travel so there are paradoxes, or are you forgetting how voyager got them.

 

Indeed.

I would point out that we've only seen the Sovereign's Core in one engagement in which the shields were breached. I would note that the Enterprise D has been in several engagements in which the hull sustainted massive damage and the core was not compromised.

Best of Both Worlds: Tunneling Cutting Beam to the Engineering Hull
Yesterday's Enterprise: Sustained Damage to all Decks by Klingon Disruptors

To compare Nemesis as one example and present it as proof positive of superior stability is not logical. Warp Cores use substances that are highly volatile in combination and are obviously dangerous reactants. It doesn't make Star War's reactors any better, In RotJ the few shots from Mon Calmair caused a massive chain reaction and the vessel blew sky.

 

that's a very educational post mate, might you point out the source then?

 

1.and soon we won't, or at least not as big and so many, the military doctrine moves to smaller escort versions.
now on the x-wing and f-14 comparisson, let me clarify... a squadron of x-wings can't despose of an ISD. but it takes the industrial capacity and resources of more then 1 star sistem to even build one. now compare that to the average costs for a single x-wing sqadron.... you see the point. in a stand off engagement for the same mony, you'll get 1000s or even 10000s x-wings for every ISD. more then enough i think.

2. no one sais that redeplyable bases are not usefull, but to say who woul win... that's not so easy. it is like asking would France win if maginot line was mobile. a bit of a pardox in it self. bases are by their nature static. carriers have some of their functions as far as air wings deployment is at stake but that's it.

3.if you establisf beachheads you are free to use full ECCM. since you want your troops landed where you are, you'd be ina huge advantage.

4.no no no, you missundertood, i eas refering at the awfull hit percentage of SW weapons when fired at fregates, freighters and fighters. if you can't hit a 12g manouvering x-wing how you expect to hit a 200g torpedo (i made up the numbers)

5.oh are they fired manualy then?

6.i though you ment their operating principle is time travel as in they go back or forth in time and then they home back. but afcourse Janeway brought them back from the future, we all wached the show. this even brings more woes for the SW side. it apears teh temoral inforcers are hypocrits and would stop at nothing to make sure their favorits win.

 

Which is why "heavy tanks" use sub-kiloton weapons that can't even produce a scorch mark on the ground? They're just "parade items", right?

Right.

 

Uhm... no.

The Sovereign's warp core is far more powerful than the Galaxy core.

Why?

It was designed using the same idea as the Defiant core - not as long, but wider and with more of the "chambers" that allowed the reaction to occur. The Sov core has, I believe, 12 of these chambers, compared to the galaxies six. It's power output is far in excess of what the Galaxy class can do.

Proof?

The USS Sovereign had to be refit with the new core to be able to take full advantage of the more powerful phaser and shielding systems, because the older Galaxy core couldn't sustain them.

Further proof? The Prometheus Class uses THREE micro-cores that, when the ship is not in multi-vector attack mode, work together to supply an incredible amount of power.

 

Captain... there are no signs of Intelligent life anywhere...

 

That's one of TWSCOTT's biggest errors.

Fighters in Star War's do have a role against captial ships

We've seen it twice in the old Trilogy. Fighters took out the Death Star, and fighters were launched on both sides against captial ships.

But Scott's own reasoning if a Nebulon B evens the odds against a Star Destroyer with a fighter wing then consider this:

Wedge & Red 3

RED THREE
Three of them coming in, twenty degrees!

WEDGE

Cut to the left! I'll take the leader!
They're heading for the medical frigate.


Three fighters were enough to warrant alarm from Wedge and to Bring Lando with the Falcon around to deal with them.

An Imperial Star Destroyer 5.3 x longer and considerably larger. But 5x as many fighters would be 15 fighters or three fighter wings.

 

Scott, are you getting a little too big for your britches again?

And no, the massive size of the SSD seems to hope that the sheer mass of the ship will protect it from the smaller ships that it reguarly engages, similar in the way that the Malevolence was able to take a great deal of punishment, despite having lost her shields. However, since the typical output of a Venator's HTL is about 3-10 megatons and a Warbird's forward disruptor is about 78,000 terrawatts (18 megatons more or less), how well do you think the SSD will hold out? Although, an ISD II does give out 6-20 megatons. Not to mention photonic torpedoes in Enterprise were 51 megatons, let alone the firepower they'd display in TNG+.

I find that hard to believe. It takes several shots just for a turret to lock onto an actual frigate in Downfall of a Droid.

First off, a phased cloaking device is not affected by gravity. Geordie and Ensign Ro were only partially phased since the entire incident was an accident. There is no indication that the test is an accurate example...because it was an accident! Furthermore, it requires power to stay shifted, as we saw via the phase cloak. Further evidence that something was fishy with the entire idea.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that there would be no reason to assume that the Empire would know this fact and try to capture it with a tractor beam, is there?

 

There's also the fact that any SW tractor beam would simply be sheered off via the warp engines of a torpedo

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hmm did anyone in SW ever used a tractor beam on an artificial gravity well (like an active interdictor fregate or something)?

 

Okay, the cost of X-wing to Death Star is not as outrageous as that . Remeber X-wings have hyperdrives. So you may be looking at 4 to 6 wings. Each wing being 72 Fighters. Even then with out a capital support ship all the X-wing ends up being is target practice. To put it bluntly it would be like riding out in rowboats armed with M-60's and expecting to sink a Battle Ship.

But we are taking something akin to the SSD or Death Star. Acting as mobile support with it's fleet. We're talking the normal fleet hits and is backed up by it's supporting starbase. Instead of the fleet having to split up to mount a defense of the base while mounting it's attack.

Okay so you are landing small craft and expecting it to compete with planet wide equipment? I mean if you landed a whole battleship, perhaps, but no at best you have runabouts and shuttles.

First of all the torpedo in ST are considerably slower thant the X-wing as we have seen time and time again in every ST battle. The things are MUCH slower than light. Second an X-wing as ECM and a pilot who jinks around. Not to mention shields that can mitigate many near misses. Also the only ship that showed poor targeting capability from the get go was the Death Star and it was designed to fight 300 meter plus craft, not 20 meter craft. As for the scene in ROTJ the Executioner was firing on a craft with a known reputation for speed and targteting jammers. The vessel also suffered the loss half of it's point defense senor damage rio

No, they are just not formed under the odd calculations that ST ses for their tractor beams. They ahave computer targeting assistance and unlike blaster are a WIDE beam.

Actually janeway brought backa few components needed and instructed the personelle on how to instal them. No intact models were brought. Only parts and not even technical knowledge oter than put this irreplaceable doohickey here. And one will note she did bring back each one she thought she might use. It was obvious that she could not replicate it here in anyway.

 

The shows man. A GCS warp core is a CLass 7 the same one they use in Defiant. It's why the prototype kept almost burning itself out.

The Soveriegn is designed for all the improvements proposed by Geordi asdn othe engineers. We see in Insurrection when the Warp core was jettisoned that the Sovie was still at one third to one half power and a credible threat against one So'na vessel but not two. However in Nemesis we see a completly armed and powered Soveriegn after Shinzon took out the warp drive, but not the core.

 

1.i was actually refering to the cost of an average ISD1&2. it was often mentioned during the discussions here that ISD is an expensive ship that only the Empirial goverment can aford, on of the reasons being that the entire GNP of an average star system is not enough to cover the expences for building one. fightrers of diferent classes are on the other hand widely availabe in multiple numbers. and since FTL as not the issue in a stand up fight it may not even tip the scales. especially hvy fighters like Y-wings, tie-bombers and B-wings (which are said to cary enough firepower so a single squadron to take out a VSD).

2.but how many standard ships can be built for the price of one SSD? or DS? and more ships can allway cover more ground. as i said it is a mater of doctrine. and the Empire chose a doctrine of terror, rather then effective power deployment. obviously this proved fatal in the long run. they should have sticked with the mobile army and navy of the republic.

3.no i expect for thousands of small craft to deliver my ground troops to the initial landing sites. after these forces establish enough safe ground, disembarking and asembling of heavier eqipement can begin.

4.truth be told, torpedoes in ST show variance in speed as much as they show variance in yield. some are slower then shuttles some are as fast as 32 frames per second, which is faster then the slugish X-wings which seam even more acceleration capable then thier proton torpedoes.
btw, if a 30m freighters and 6m fighters can jamm something the size of ISDs SSDs and DSs, i would not count much on SW ECM abilities.

5.if they are not manual, then they do require some sensor lock. tracking and locking phased out objects (if they even have the ability do descern them as such) might be tricky.

6.we have no idea how many torps were brought back or how many essential part to manufacture them. nor do we know if SF is still capable or willing of replacating them. what we do know is they do exist and what they are capable of.