Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Literally the symbol of Star Wars is a superweapon.

Also:

Star Trek has replicators, no Star Wars equivalent.

Still easily out-masses Trek, negating advantage.

Star Trek has sun destroying technology, no Star Wars equivalent.

Sun Crusher

Star Trek has cloaking devices, no Star Wars equivalent.

Cloaking is common in Star Wars.

Star Trek has computers capable of running complex physical simulations, no Star Wars equivalent.

SW AI is a better advantage.

[Radio Controlled]

Again, that site linked earlier gives a very strong case as to why star wars would 'beat' star trek, with quite some numbers and sources and such to back it up. Yes, it is rather pro-SW/anti-ST, but even so they make a compelling argument.

Here's an abbreviated version of their comparison: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

[mainiac]

Again, that site linked earlier gives a very strong case as to why star wars would 'beat' star trek, with quite some numbers and sources and such to back it up. Yes, it is rather pro-SW/anti-ST, but even so they make a compelling argument.

Here's an abbreviated version of their comparison: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

It draws from expanded universe of no consistency and it ignores that Star Wars uses the crude application of power while Star Trek is more refined.  A squadron of charging knights on horseback had more kinetic energy then a shot from a MBT.  Maybe we should conclude the knights are more advanced?

Also the bias is strong as hell.  It claims that the best example of planetary destruction in Star Trek is the die is cast.  How about By Inferno's Light part 2 where there is a plan to blow up an entire solar system.    So I wouldn't call that much of a credible judge.

This crude comparisons of numbers reminds me a lot of the people who say that the King Tiger was more advanced then modern MBTs because the armor was thicker and the gun was bigger.  That's not an indication of technology level!  It doesn't matter much that the powerplant on the Star Destroyer shield is bigger then the Enterprise if the enterprise can modulate it's phasers and shoot right through!

Literally the symbol of Star Wars is a superweapon.

Yes, a crude inefficient superweapon that takes a vast effort to do what in Star Trek people are afraid of a single ship doing.  Which really shows how mind boggling primitive Star Wars is in comparison.  It's like how the Germans couldn't flatten London during the Blitz but these days we are afraid of a single terrorist with a suitcase nuke doing something like that.  You are arguing that Germany is more advanced because it's iconic.

No the higher level technology is clearly the people who can do it with less effort.

[BFEL]

The numbers for Star Wars are so damn high not because their ships are powerful, but because the people who gave those numbers have NO GODDAMN SENSE OF SCALE.
Its clear they just picked the highest number they could pull out of their ass at any given moment.

Oh, and something they mentioned "Subject changes are quiet admissions that the Empire would wipe the floor with Trek" is hilarious because all the subject changes here have been after I refuted some Star Wars bullshit.

[Rolepgeek]

It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time. Star Trek ships are fast and shielded, but they can't really deal with Nova Cannons or swarms upon swarms of strikecraft.

And this is including expanded universe in all Thrawn's glory.

Honorverse is on par with Imperium, who wins is mostly a question of how ridiculous the stars you're using for 40k are, and therefore determine whether the Honorverse ships can pepper enough lasers into the Imperial ships to kill them before they arrive.

Also you forgot to put the Culture at the top of the list. Or near it, at least.

[Kot]

And then there is Speranza and Wh40k wins everytime with everything (except Doctor Who maybe, becuase I literally have no idea what it is about but then there is this guy in a spaceship looking like porta-potty that fucks around in time and space) basically. Casually shooting Black Holes at enemy and moving them around in time and other random shit.
Though, there is only one of those (at least active and in Imperial hands) in Wh40k, apparently, but there are many other examples of ridiculously overpowered archeotech.

[mainiac]

It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time.

Seems like a hard comparison.  Star Wars is Space Opera while 40k is Space Fantasy.  40k it's just magic.  Seems dodgy to say how magic would interact with technology.  In fact that's their exact problem.  What if all that 40k stuff just stops working?  What if all the Star Wars stuff does?

[Kot]

A lot of 40k stuff isin't magic, though. Most guns would work perfectly, so would sublight travel and so on.
Also, according to lore, technically bringing a Wh40k human into Star Wars would kind of open a tunnel between one and another.

[Radio Controlled]

It draws from expanded universe of no consistency and it ignores that Star Wars uses the crude application of power while Star Trek is more refined.  A squadron of charging knights on horseback had more kinetic energy then a shot from a MBT.  Maybe we should conclude the knights are more advanced?

What do you mean with 'expanded universe of no consistency' exactly? They cite their sources, which are often official books that are cannon for both universes. Also, they don't make claims about advancedness of things, they just compare their capabilities and derive conclusions from that.

The numbers for Star Wars are so damn high not because their ships are powerful, but because the people who gave those numbers have NO GODDAMN SENSE OF SCALE.
Its clear they just picked the highest number they could pull out of their ass at any given moment.

Oh yeah, it's trivially easy to make it so one side beats another by making up different numbers for an imaginary universe. One could easily write a sci-fi short story where the protagonist race/entity wipes the floor with most other franchises. Even so, the numbers and events the creators gave us are what we have to work with.

Also the bias is strong as hell.  It claims that the best example of planetary destruction in Star Trek is the die is cast.  How about By Inferno's Light part 2 where there is a plan to blow up an entire solar system.    So I wouldn't call that much of a credible judge.

Yeah, the way it seems to bash star trek/trekkies is kinda annoying. That said, I looked up the summary of the episode you mentioned (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/By_Inferno's_Light_(episode)) and it says the plan was to induce a supernova in the local sun by throwing a ship loaded with some crap into it. That's one way to destroy a planet for sure, but isn't a direct method, and would be unusable in a number of situations (eg. If I remember correctly not all stars are fated to go supernova, our own sun is destined to become a red dwarf instead because it doesn't have the mass required to go supernova). The comparison they were making there (iirc, though it'd be really helpful if you could include links to the pages you refer to so I don't have to search up and down the site) was about the capacity for directly bombarding planets, without using 'external sources'.

This crude comparisons of numbers reminds me a lot of the people who say that the King Tiger was more advanced then modern MBTs because the armor was thicker and the gun was bigger.  That's not an indication of technology level!  It doesn't matter much that the powerplant on the Star Destroyer shield is bigger then the Enterprise if the enterprise can modulate it's phasers and shoot right through!

Why would modulating their phasers allow to shoot through a star destroyer shield? What does that even really mean? Also, while I'll admit that the comparisons can be crude, being 'more refined' doesn't make something automatically better either, does it? (they address this point here, by the way: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_Tech.html
Also here: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myth_Science.html#WeaponTech)

Also, they also have a page pages on the whole 'modulating phasers and shields' thing: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myth_Science.html#Phase-coherence
In general on shields of both franchises: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/index.html

[BFEL]

In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.

[mainiac]

In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.

Because people contest the point. 

What do you mean with 'expanded universe of no consistency' exactly?

We mean that Star Wars cannnon is whatever one of literally thousands of different people pulled out of their ass on a random day.  The numbers vary immensely.  Star Trek isn't perfect but it's more consistent.

If you accept the highball numbers, vast parts of the cannon stop making sense.

The comparison they were making there (iirc, though it'd be really helpful if you could include links to the pages you refer to so I don't have to search up and down the site) was about the capacity for directly bombarding planets, without using 'external sources'.

But no one in Trek would do that.  It's against their sense of self preservation.  It's like talking about how bad modern armies are at cavalry charges.  Then someone brings up tanks and you say "stop changing the subject!"

It's also lowballing what is shown to be possible in Star Trek.  When Sisko is chasing Michael Eddington he poisons several planets, rendering them inhabitable for colonization.  He does this to several planets in a single day without any special preperation.  (Personally I think he would have been court martialed but I guess it's okay if no one is living there.)  So that shows what is possible in Star Trek if they are actually trying to burn the ground.

The obvious conclusion is that in Star Trek inhabited planets have defenses.

[Radio Controlled]

In that first one they point out that the arguments from trekkies are "Federation has tech Wars lacks" and "Federation has tech that beats Wars tech" and then only defends the second point. Once again it deflects away from the issues.

Are you talking about the first link I posted with 'that first one'?

Do you mean they don't adres the presence of unique ST techs adequately? They do have a page on both 'special' ST and SW techs: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Special/Special1.html and http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Special/Special2.html.
If you meant something else, could you elaborate?

For the record, saying that faction A of universe B could overpower its counterpart from universe C doesn't imply anything about any artistic or entertainment merit of either, and as said it's trivially easy to create a fictional universe that dwarfs a given other universe. So even if one's favored franchise loses, that doesn't really, you know, mean anything substantial (I'd rather have a interesting universe of lower power scales than the opposite). Just wanted to throw that out there.

We mean that Star Wars cannnon is whatever one of literally thousands of different people pulled out of their ass on a random day.  The numbers vary immensely.  Star Trek isn't perfect but it's more consistent.

If you accept the highball numbers, vast parts of the cannon stop making sense.

Ok, but the arguments they make mostly refer to numbers either derived from observation from events in the movies, or from official Lucasfilm sources.
Also, I believe they adres the problem of different 'levels' of canon here: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Canon.html
Also this (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html) and this (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Sources_and_Abbreviations.html) page seems relevant when it comes to discussing sources used.

But no one in Trek would do that.  It's against their sense of self preservation.  It's like talking about how bad modern armies are at cavalry charges.  Then someone brings up tanks and you say "stop changing the subject!"

Again, could you please refer to the exact page you are talking about here? That'd make it easier for me to follow. Still, even if nobody in Trek would do it, that doesn't change things about their capacity for it. It'd also kinda hamper them in a case of total war, if they are unwilling to pursue that option.

It's also lowballing what is shown to be possible in Star Trek.  When Sisko is chasing Michael Eddington he poisons several planets, rendering them inhabitable for colonization.  He does this to several planets in a single day without any special preperation.  (Personally I think he would have been court martialed but I guess it's okay if no one is living there.)  So that shows what is possible in Star Trek if they are actually trying to burn the ground.

I've seen a little ST in my time, but not nearly all of it. Could you perhaps give me episode titles so I can look them up and see what happened (or rather, check the episode synopsis)? Because I have no idea what the circumstances or scope of these events are right now to be honest. I mean, from looking it up quickly I suspect you are referring to this: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/For_the_Uniform_(episode)
Is that correct? Because if yes, it kinda seems they just used good ol' chemical warfare on a bigger scale. We have similar capabilities in real life today, sort of, in the form of cobalt bombs that could make large areas uninhabitable.

The obvious conclusion is that in Star Trek inhabited planets have defenses.

Do they ever directly refer to these defenses, what they are, what their capabilities are? Or is this only derived from inference? Because I could think of other explanations of why they would refrain from just nuking the shit out of a planet/population.

[mainiac]

I'm sorry, I missed the part in the Star Wars movie where the characters sat around on the bridge discussing the energy output of a star destroyer shield.  I didn't know that we had a familiar cannon to fall back on.

Because that's the kind of conversation that bridge crews have in star trek...  Well not the specs but the capabilities.

[Rolepgeek]

It's fairly well established that 40k beats Star Wars every time.

Seems like a hard comparison.  Star Wars is Space Opera while 40k is Space Fantasy.  40k it's just magic.  Seems dodgy to say how magic would interact with technology.  In fact that's their exact problem.  What if all that 40k stuff just stops working?  What if all the Star Wars stuff does?

...That's not how you do comparisons. (no offense intended, it's just that 'would one stop working?' makes it pointless to compare in the first place) So, first, Star Wars is Space Fantasy too, with The Force. Second, comparisons like these (afaik) always function with the idea that each universe's technology works fine for them, and where their unique stuff/macguffins interact, they're supposed to translate into the equivalent as closely as possible for effects. Warp Rifts would probably rip Star Wars ships apart as well as they would 40k ships, and Jedi starfighters will be just as skilled in a dogfight against Imperial pilots who don't have the force as they would against any other opponent. 40k has magic interacting with technology a lot more, I'll grant, but from their perspective it's no more magic than hyperspace is for Star Wars. Few people understand the inner workings, and the general education level for 40k and complexity level for technology is a much starker contrasts.

On another note, re: planetary bombardment - If we're talking full-scale wars rather than ship v. ship comparisons (of which I will argue that Imperium>Star Wars>Star Trek, on engagement range alone, before getting to energy levels and specific capabilities of engagement), they are very much a factor. Destroying the enemy's means of production is an important part of attrition warfare. And with FTL travel, supply lines are rather hard to cut off, particularly when Interdictors don't really do anything and you can't generate a Warp Storm on command. Star Wars would suffer the most from that, to be fair, though.

And while I expect inhabited planets to have defenses in Star Trek, Radio has a point in that it is A. an inference and B. doesn't actually tell us anything about how strong they are. Star Wars planets have defenses too. The point of the Death Star was to break through planetary shields and intimidate worlds. Glassing a planet doesn't require much more than a ship with large enough turbolasers and reactors to burn through the atmosphere.

Expanded Universe is great for energy levels. Sorta. Much like 40k, the consistency varies hugely depending on which author/source you're using. Star Trek doesn't have much in the way of that, but they do discuss things on the show(s). (btw, poisoning a planet probably doesn't require much beyond an onboard chemical agent, and with replicators/a devious mind preparing for quite a bit, it really doesn't prove much about ability to poison worlds with existing defenses)

Also, mainiac, this is a thread about fictional universes fighting each other. No need to become hostile

[Max™]

Re: Xeelee/Dalek/Etc discussion.

Shiva (the God) stomps [entire universes, not just the races, the universes themselves], Daleks stomp [anything but Time Lords, particularly ones with plot], Xeelee stomp [anything constrained by physics but Photino birds], then you get down into the usual stuff, Trek, Wars, etc.

Xeelee ships are grown from some nonsense physics violating stuff that came out of a thought experiment "what if you turned off the Pauli Exclusion Principle?" where the answer is basically Adamantine, except black. They're masters of timefuckery (excluding the Blue Children from Manifold: Time) within something resembling plausible physics.

I gimped up a Nightfighter a while back which I'm still proud of.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Now back to your regularly scheduled Trek vs Wars discussion.