ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

ST vs SW

LtCmdrHanson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jan. 25 2010, 10:30 pm

Hi all,

Since I've seen numerous vs. threads on here, I've not seen one like this..

Using the first three movies, and any other material out at that time, compare/contrast it to TOS and the TOS era movies along w/any material out at that time.

Basically it's - The Original SW trilogy w/ whatever other material
                   TOS & TOS era movies w/whatever other material

(So, no Clone Wars stuff gets reconned into the SW material..)

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Jan. 25 2010, 11:08 pm

okay if you use on-screen material solely then star trek beats out star wars by a long shot. If you use all the other crap that george lucas studios put into star wars later than it's unfair for star trek because star trek does not count anything other than on screen stuff as canon while star wars counts everything as canon. glad you see the case here so I'll go by on screen stuff only.

weapons-trek.  wars weaponry seem to be really close range, trek weapons are accurate up to 300,000 km.
speed- solo's falcon the fastest ship in star wars can go .5 past light speed. dude warp 1 would be faster than that. again trek wins.
defense- star wars shields seem to be easily penetrated since all you have to do is blow out the generators in plain sight. Trek shields generators are internal and are very flexible with modulations. Trek wins.
sensors- trek.
size- wars but size means nothing if your opponent is something you can't hit.
characters- trek=less annoying. trek wins.

So trek is the victor. :)

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 25 2010, 11:40 pm

Quote (tribblenator999 @ Jan. 25 2010, 12:08 am)
okay if you use on-screen material solely then star trek beats out star wars by a long shot. If you use all the other crap that george lucas studios put into star wars later than it's unfair for star trek because star trek does not count anything other than on screen stuff as canon while star wars counts everything as canon. glad you see the case here so I'll go by on screen stuff only.

weapons-trek. ¿wars weaponry seem to be really close range, trek weapons are accurate up to 300,000 km.
speed- solo's falcon the fastest ship in star wars can go .5 past light speed. dude warp 1 would be faster than that. again trek wins.
defense- star wars shields seem to be easily penetrated since all you have to do is blow out the generators in plain sight. Trek shields generators are internal and are very flexible with modulations. Trek wins.
sensors- trek.
size- wars but size means nothing if your opponent is something you can't hit.
characters- trek=less annoying. trek wins.

So trek is the victor. :)

Quote
defense- star wars shields seem to be easily penetrated since all you have to do is blow out the generators in plain sight. Trek shields generators are internal and are very flexible with modulations. Trek wins.
 Those globe things are not shield generators they are communication towers this is according to one of the designers of the movie.  The shield generating thing is a mistake made by the designers of the Starwars table top RPG. Try again.

Quote
size- wars but size means nothing if your opponent is something you can't hit.
 Based on the footage in the movie the Death star turrents were almost hitting the small (12m long) fighter craft.  There will be no trouble hitting the far larger and far less maneuverable trek craft.

:eyesroll: if the ship could only go 1.5c then it would take them YEARS to get anywhere.  Since it clearly does not (only a few hours at most) the speed is much faster than any warp vessel.

:D

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 26 2010, 7:34 am

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 25 2010, 4:02 am)
Quote
Many (but not all) impulse battles occur at severely short ranges. ? We have seen weapons used at impulse to have profound ranges ("The Wounded"[TNG4], "Return to Grace"[DS9-4], "The Search"[DS9-3], etc.), in the area of 100,000-250,000 kilometers. However, weapons limited to lightspeed would take a third of a second to cross a 100,000km distance, so maneuverable Trek targets engaging in evasive maneuvers could evade (especially given that phasers do not move at lightspeed, canonically). "Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3] shows the Klingons firing at about 80,000 kilometers.
At warp, torpedo ranges are at least 5 million kilometers ("Human Error"[VOY7], with similar range shown in "Flashback"[VOY3]). Phaser maximum range at warp is unknown.

Maximum Range: ~200,000 km (STL only), Effective Maximum Range: 10-200,000km (variable).


Don't forget to thank me for giving you specific examples since I'm still waiting on your example of a 200 gigaton firepower of the star wars cannon's

Quote
Based on the footage in the movie the Death star turrents were almost hitting the small (12m long) fighter craft. ?There will be no trouble hitting the far larger and far less maneuverable trek craft.


Yeah that's another thing, 95+% of every attempt to hit a fighter is a miss from those torrents. ?That's just ridiculous. ?Where's the great empire technology that's supposed to crush trek? ?It sure ain't there. ? ;)

:eyesroll: if the ship could only go 1.5c then it would take them YEARS to get anywhere. ?Since it clearly does not (only a few hours at most) the speed is much faster than any warp vessel.


Hans said something along the lines of "She'll make point five past lightspeed". ?What else could he have meant by that? ?Although he also said it made the kessle run in less than 12 parsecs where a parsec is a measure of distance not time. ?It's not fair that you can pick and choose misinformation though. ?If you're willing to admit that there are things said in star wars that are incorrect and underestimates then you're going to have to bend the other way and admit that there are things said in star wars that are incorrect and overestimates.

Quote

Many (but not all) impulse battles occur at severely short ranges. ¿ We have seen weapons used at impulse to have profound ranges ("The Wounded"[TNG4], "Return to Grace"[DS9-4], "The Search"[DS9-3], etc.), in the area of 100,000-250,000 kilometers. However, weapons limited to lightspeed would take a third of a second to cross a 100,000km distance, so maneuverable Trek targets engaging in evasive maneuvers could evade (especially given that phasers do not move at lightspeed, canonically). "Elaan of Troyius"[TOS3] shows the Klingons firing at about 80,000 kilometers.
At warp, torpedo ranges are at least 5 million kilometers ("Human Error"[VOY7], with similar range shown in "Flashback"[VOY3]). Phaser maximum range at warp is unknown.

Maximum Range: ~200,000 km (STL only), Effective Maximum Range: 10-200,000km (variable).
¿I call BS on these large ranges given the fact RAMMING IS STILL AN EFFECTIVE TACTIC. ¿If they ranges are as far as you say then ramming would be impossible not to mention we never SEE combat at that range in the tv show or movies they are all within visual range.

¿A blind spot says nothing about sensor capabilities. ¿As for the cave the went in all the way to the back and it was also the belly of a giant space monster. ¿In star trek tubes in ds9 made out of duranimum are impervious to sensors and duranium is a naturally occuring metal on Bajor. ¿Hell trek sensors are blocked by what ever random plot devise of the week. ¿War sensors have been around for 25,000 years minimum(about as long as the Galactic Republic existed) so most of those bugs have been worked out.

;) ¿Out of the 3 squadrons of fighters that left to fight the Death Star only 3 individual fighters came back besides we have trek ships missing far larger targets as far slower speeds My Webpage ¿It is too bad the Trek miss videos are gone from YOU tube.

Quote
I remember the falcon was able to hide on the side of an enemy ship and they weren't detected. ¿I can't think of any episode of star trek where they were able to attach themselves to an enemy ship and no one would see them. ¿The empire should have known they were there too. ¿One minute the falcon is flying at them and the next they just "disappear". ¿They also hid in a "cave" where empire sensors couldn't find them apparently. ¿If star wars sensors were so great then the falcon sensors should have shown that wasn't a cave too by the way. ¿This should show that the empire sensors are rather worthless and that the crew are just stupid. ¿I wouldn't be too quick to give them credit for anything.
> id="QUOTE">Out of the 3 squadrons of fighters that left to fight the Death Star only 3 individual fighters came back besides we have trek ships missing far larger targets as far slower speeds My Webpage ?It is too bad the Trek miss videos are gone from YOU tube.
Quote
Hans said something along the lines of "She'll make point five past lightspeed". ¿What else could he have meant by that? ¿Although he also said it made the kessle run in less than 12 parsecs where a parsec is a measure of distance not time. ¿It's not fair that you can pick and choose misinformation though. ¿If you're willing to admit that there are things said in star wars that are incorrect and underestimates then you're going to have to bend the other way and admit that there are things said in star wars that are incorrect and overestimates. ¿Well seeing as it would have taken them YEARS to get any where he obviously couldn't have meant literally 1.5c light speed and hyperspace a probably synonymous terms besides based on the Novelization of ROTJ it clearly states the rebel fleet was "hundreds" of light years away. ¿This gives us a minimum of 200 light years of which they made the trip in the time it took for Vader to take Luke from Endor to the death star

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 26 2010, 9:40 am

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote> id="QUOTE">They calculated the minimum power required to vaporize the asteroid in TESB and scaled it up.
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 25 2010, 9:14 am)


those were some pretty small rocks, nope that's not 200 gigatons of firepower

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote


Why weren't they able to get them all? ¿The number of cannon's outnumbered the ships yet they all missed.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">not sure this makes sense.  Are you trying to say ramming is effective for star wars vessels but it's impossible for them to do it with star trek's superior weapon's range?  No I am saying trek superior range is a myth given the fact that ramming is still an effective tactic.

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">Why weren't they able to get them all?  The number of cannon's outnumbered the ships yet they all missed.  It is called "evasive maneuvers" you do realize that enemy pilots don't like to get hit or do you think that the enemy should stay in one place so they can be hit :eyesroll:

border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote > id="QUOTE">I'm not interested in hearing why you think hans was mistaken about the 1.5 light years figure.  I already said they probably got the number wrong just like they got the other numbers wrong like being able to travel across the galaxy in a few hours.  Except if the trip was going to be more than hours than Han would have said a day as part of his estimated time of arrival.  Besides in ROTJ the rebel fleet cross a minimum distance of 200 light years in at most an hour or 2 that is far faster than we see trek

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 26 2010, 12:02 pm

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Jan. 25 2010, 11:41 am)
I find it interesting how everyone quotes range and fire power as reasons for one side being superior to the other. It's not how powerful your weapons are that will decide if one wins or loses. It's how one uses the weapons they have that will win the day.

But when one side can one hit kill everything on the other side and can easily shrug off the most powerful attacks of the other side for hours at a time then tactics are moot.

Venicius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1449

Report this Jan. 26 2010, 10:00 pm

Tos trek has a better chance the TNG and later crap but Im not sure if they have enough advantages to ensure victory.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 27 2010, 7:24 am

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 7:25 am)
According to Curtis Saxton's Interview the ICS attack of the clones was done without using much of the footage from the films rather he got his data from the comic books. ¿

George Lucas himself is quoted to considers data from sources like ICS as a parallel universe and seperate from the film.

Quote
?There are two worlds here,? ¿explained Lucas. ?There?s my world, which is the movies, and there?s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe ? the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don?t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, ¿[but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don?t get too involved in the parallel universe.?"


According to http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wiki/index.php/Canon ICS falls into the category of Non-Canon

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWxwingfal.html refers to the book as non-canon

Maybe these are opinions I don't know. ¿The continuity hierarchy gives precidence of the film over the books though. ¿Since 200 gigaton firepower is not shown in the films, it's not taken into account in the debates regarding firepower as far as I'm concerned. ¿I really don't see the problem in throwing out the whole ICS book as evidence of anything. ¿If it was so obvious that star wars weaponry was stronger you wouldn't need one sole source of information to prove it. ¿A convergence of proof from multiple sources would make the position more valid anyway.

No you moron C-canon is canon unless it contradicts the movies not prove the ICS contradicts the movies?  Since the Slave I fire powers are accurate and we never see the Acculamtor fire.  Good luck

As for the other website Darkstar is natorious about ignoring canon when it suits him.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 27 2010, 12:06 pm

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 8:49 am)
Quote
No you moron C-canon is canon unless it contradicts the movies not prove the ICS contradicts the movies? ¿Since the Slave I fire powers are accurate and we never see the Acculamtor fire. ¿Good luck

As for the other website Darkstar is natorious about ignoring canon when it suits him.


It does contradict the movies (you moron also), in wartime the empire would be stupid not to use this firepower to the full potential. ¿Since it's not used in film, there's no reason to assume it is used at all or even exists regardless of what some technical ¿manual with fudged numbers says.

Show examples of less firepower in the films that also shows they can't at the same time be more powerful

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 27 2010, 10:17 pm

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 11:09 pm)
Quote (chr3335 @ Jan. 27 2010, 12:06 pm)
Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 8:49 am)
Quote
No you moron C-canon is canon unless it contradicts the movies not prove the ICS contradicts the movies? ?Since the Slave I fire powers are accurate and we never see the Acculamtor fire. ?Good luck

As for the other website Darkstar is natorious about ignoring canon when it suits him.


It does contradict the movies (you moron also), in wartime the empire would be stupid not to use this firepower to the full potential. ?Since it's not used in film, there's no reason to assume it is used at all or even exists regardless of what some technical ?manual with fudged numbers says.

Show examples of less firepower in the films that also shows they can't at the same time be more powerful

Only if you show me examples of the firepower of 200 gigatons from capital ships in the film to prove its validity. ¿The author of that book calls himself scientist so he should at least provide evidence of its calculations step by step to support his theories like any good scientist would. ¿ Simple fact is he was writing that book while the films were still in production and didn't have access to the footage, he mostly went by models, unfinished scenes from the movies, and comic books and was on a strict deadline to finish it. ¿Errors are bound to happen.

I don't have to as you are the ones saying the figures are not valid.  Provide evidence they are not valid and that they contradict canon.

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 28 2010, 6:46 am

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 11:33 pm)
Quote (chr3335 @ Jan. 27 2010, 10:17 pm)
Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 11:09 pm)
Quote (chr3335 @ Jan. 27 2010, 12:06 pm)
Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 26 2010, 8:49 am)
Quote
No you moron C-canon is canon unless it contradicts the movies not prove the ICS contradicts the movies? ?Since the Slave I fire powers are accurate and we never see the Acculamtor fire. ?Good luck

As for the other website Darkstar is natorious about ignoring canon when it suits him.


It does contradict the movies (you moron also), in wartime the empire would be stupid not to use this firepower to the full potential. ?Since it's not used in film, there's no reason to assume it is used at all or even exists regardless of what some technical ?manual with fudged numbers says.

Show examples of less firepower in the films that also shows they can't at the same time be more powerful

Only if you show me examples of the firepower of 200 gigatons from capital ships in the film to prove its validity. ?The author of that book calls himself scientist so he should at least provide evidence of its calculations step by step to support his theories like any good scientist would. ? Simple fact is he was writing that book while the films were still in production and didn't have access to the footage, he mostly went by models, unfinished scenes from the movies, and comic books and was on a strict deadline to finish it. ?Errors are bound to happen.

I don't have to as you are the ones saying the figures are not valid. ?Provide evidence they are not valid and that they contradict canon.

How can I provide evidence on film when star wars doesn't have that kind of firepower? ?What about that scene where the x-wing was going to collide with the ship in star wars return of the jedi and the guy in charge says "intensify forward firepower!" and we still don't see 200 gigatons?

Hey back to the death star for a moment, ?what if the borg detonated omega molecules in front of the death star. ?Do you think their shields would hold or that the station would still be there a few seconds later?

Its shields survived a planet blowing up in its face I am sure it will be fine.  Not my problem the burden of proof is on you to show they are not accurate because that is your claim.

Aratech

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 609

Report this Jan. 28 2010, 12:53 pm

Quote (marshall8472 @ Jan. 28 2010, 9:41 am)
Quote
Its shields survived a planet blowing up in its face I am sure it will be fine. ?Not my problem the burden of proof is on you to show they are not accurate because that is your claim.


But omega is the most powerful molecule in the universe. ?Its destruction can affect an entire quadrant. ?Your star wars made the claim first though in your "star wars bible" if you will. ?

The ICS's claim that star wars has this firepower too, yet this claim was never proven true in the films. ?Then its figures are simply declared as true. ?The burden of proof is on star wars really, you just try to quietly shift the burden of proof to star trek as your defense here. ?If you want to accept them as true you can but when trying to convince star trekies that star wars is stronger, in all fairness you cannot simply use these figures without proving their accuracy first.

Quantify this. ¿"Affect" is so vague as to not even be funny.

I will never understand this strange desire among some Trek fans to be so adamantly determined to prove that their franchise has a bigger proverbial male genitalia than that of others.  What is the deal here?

Lucifer_

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12834

Report this Jan. 29 2010, 1:12 am

LOL @ this thread

The treknerds will be forever whiny and butthurt

the debate is like an itch that must be scratched

it borders on sado-masochism

LtCmdrHanson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Jan. 29 2010, 5:48 am

I think the claims that the ICS make should be proven onscreen somewhere, don't just throw some numbers down and call it 'official'. IMHO, the 'levels' of canon that SW has just make it clear (to me) that in these vs. threads, SW needs all the help it can get.

Thats why I wrote at the top of the thread to see if the material to use for these threads could cover both the TOS series, TOS era movies and any written material that covers that era. Same would be said for SW..the OT and any written material, excluding CW stuff as a lot of that stuff seems to have now been retconned into the OT as each animated episode comes out.

I've wondered on these debates, if for these debates that the materail used were equal, (onscreen and that's it) and have been told 'SW has 6 movies and the CW series, while Trek has 100's of hrs of tv, and 10 now 11 movies..so using onscreen is unfair, but if the debate goes on with the SW levels of canon, then its 'too bad GR/Paramount/TPTB didn't have a system like this'

If each side could come up with a fair amount of material to work from, then these debates might have more people interested. As it is, when SW numbers are mentioned, peoples' eyes glaze over, well mine do. lol

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jan. 29 2010, 6:55 am

Quote (LtCmdrHanson @ Jan. 28 2010, 6:48 am)
I think the claims that the ICS make should be proven onscreen somewhere, don't just throw some numbers down and call it 'official'. IMHO, the 'levels' of canon that SW has just make it clear (to me) that in these vs. threads, SW needs all the help it can get.

Thats why I wrote at the top of the thread to see if the material to use for these threads could cover both the TOS series, TOS era movies and any written material that covers that era. Same would be said for SW..the OT and any written material, excluding CW stuff as a lot of that stuff seems to have now been retconned into the OT as each animated episode comes out.

I've wondered on these debates, if for these debates that the materail used were equal, (onscreen and that's it) and have been told 'SW has 6 movies and the CW series, while Trek has 100's of hrs of tv, and 10 now 11 movies..so using onscreen is unfair, but if the debate goes on with the SW levels of canon, then its 'too bad GR/Paramount/TPTB didn't have a system like this'

If each side could come up with a fair amount of material to work from, then these debates might have more people interested. As it is, when SW numbers are mentioned, peoples' eyes glaze over, well mine do. lol

We already have a fair system which is both sides play by the same rules which is we follow each sides respective canon policy.  It is not my fault the numbers from star wars means trek gets crushed.  Not my fault the Asteroid scene from TESB shows firepower much stronger than anything we have seen from trek.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum