Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who would win a star destroyer or the enterprise D <(Captain Picard)>

I think Enterprise D would win, but i am holding my vote for now. I think Enterprise would win, because they have shields around their ship an it always seemed to me, that ST ships are more powerful, then SW, except the Death Star. I could be wrong though.

Its a stomp in favor of the Star Destroyer. The Star Destroyer as well, has its very own set of shields which are merely visually, less noticable and its bristling with far more guns due to its more militaristic nature compared to the Enterprise.

Well, let's see:

Type XII phaser arrays are in the low to mid terawatt range and photon torpedoes are in the double - digit megaton range.

Medium turbolasers are in the triple - digit gigaton range, and the Star Destroyer's shields are in the Teraton - Petaton range.

Yep, I'll go with the latter.

The Enterprise. Capt. Picard will find a way to win.

Originally posted by LORDSIDIOUS01
The Enterprise. Capt. Picard will find a way to win.

That doesn't mean anything unless you explain how

seeing how it takes an entire rebelion fleer to topple a star destroyer, and even without thier sheilds activatted, it requires a certain class of weaponry to effect the ship, i doubt a single starfleet ship of any kind stands a chance

Star Destroyer

hahaha

turbo lasers are way about phasers. If the Enterprise could beam a bomb on board they could win.

Originally posted by zozo_yoyo_xoxo
turbo lasers are way about phasers. If the Enterprise could beam a bomb on board they could win.

Except for the fact that they can't beam through shields

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Except for the fact that they can't beam through shields

According to StarDestroyer.net and Spacebattles.com but not every site.

Originally posted by zozo_yoyo_xoxo
According to StarDestroyer.net and Spacebattles.com but not every site.

According to the canon of the show itself.

It's repeatedly stated and shown that they can't beam through shields.

Star Destroyer, easily.

In fact, every weapon, character, or ship from Star Wars just about shits on anything from Star Trek.

(i.e, Wookies would rip the arms right off of a klingon, and a regiment of Clone troops would WtFpWn some Borg.)

Nope, Q could destroy everything from SW, probably the hole universe, with a snap of his finger.

Originally posted by Count Makashi
Nope, Q could destroy everything from SW, probably the hole universe, with a snap of his finger.

Except he's never demonstrated any feats anywhere on that scale ever.

Star Destroyer.

I love watching Trek and Star Wars nerds *****. .

A shadow vessel would tear them both apart.

http://img.search.com/7/71/B5_shadows.jpg

Originally posted by Starhawk
A shadow vessel would tear them both apart.

http://img.search.com/7/71/B5_shadows.jpg

The ship from serenity would own them all

I know practically nothing about Babylon 5, but Firefly/Serenity is one of the weakest scifi universes in terms of combat ability

"long fan of both (& a Sci-Fi nut all around) but this is really apples to oranges. In the "Trek" world a Star Destoyer would be considered a simple "impulse" vessle.
Think of it as a battle between a WW2 Aircraft Carrier & a modern fast attack nuclear submarine. Size just wouldn't matter in this reguard.
Ray sheilding, turbo lasers manuverabilty of a cow??
A Galaxy Class starship using warp & long range weapons could take on an entire fleet of Star Destroyers with little difficulty.
The original constitution class Enterprise had photon torpedos that had a maximum yeild of 64 megatons. (that's roughly equal to 2000
Hiroshimas) Also her deflector shields were very formitable. In the episode "The Doomsday Machine" they took repeated hits from a weapon that was used to destroy whole planets.
Now her Phasers is also something to think about. The ships phasers set to full could supposedly whipe out half a continent the size of north America.

Now "warp speed" is an increadbly fun thought. It creates a bubble of normal "space time" around the vessle while the it traverses extradimensional
"hyperspace." This enables the ship to interact with things in real space while traveling MANY MANY times the speed of light.

A Star Destroyer even a Super Star destroyer wouldn't last long against the old Enterprise.
Much less the Galaxy Class

Long fan of both (& a Sci-Fi nut all around) but this is really apples to oranges. In the "Trek" world a Star Destoyer would be considered a simple "impulse" vessle.
Think of it as a battle between a WW2 Aircraft Carrier & a modern fast attack nuclear submarine. Size just wouldn't matter in this reguard.
Ray sheilding, turbo lasers manuverabilty of a cow??
A Galaxy Class starship using warp & long range weapons could take on an entire fleet of Star Destroyers with little difficulty.
The rub would be the "Federations" desire to "negotiate" before fighting. Just don't see Picard negotiating very well with Vader. Though it would be "ineresting" (as Spock would say) to watch. & Tie fighters could attack by the dozens & 1: Never penetrate the Big E's shields & 2: get vaporized with phaser fire from the enterpris's targeting computer. Not to mention the Big E's ability to pop in & out of warp all day without any complex hypeerspace computations. Really guys no contest. None at all. (This is comming from a Star Wars NUT that first saw the movie when I was 11 & went back 23 times that first summer in 77.)
The original constitution class Enterprise had photon torpedos that had a maximum yeild of 64 megatons. (that's roughly equal to 2000
Hiroshimas) Also her deflector shields were very formitable. In the episode "The Doomsday Machine" they took repeated hits from a weapon that was used to destroy whole planets.
Now her Phasers are also something to think about. The ships phasers set to full could supposedly whipe out half a continent the size of north America.

Now "warp speed" is an increadbly fun thought. It creates a bubble of normal "space time" around the vessle while the it traverses extradimensional "hyperspace." This enables the ship to interact with things in real space while traveling MANY MANY times the speed of light.

A Star Destroyer even a Super Star destroyer wouldn't last long against the old Enterprise. Much less the Galaxy Class

Site to site teleportation alone is WAY beyond SW Tech. (See all that traffic on Coruscant???) Yuk.

And if you are impressed with size. The Glaxay class ship is over 7 football fields long & 4 across. That isn't "puny" by any stretch of the imagination. An Imperial class ship is 1600 meters long. That is bigger but not that much. Thats 2100 feet vs 5200 ft. A Romulan Warbird is 4200 ft & the Enterprise mixed it up with them plenty of times.
Apples & Oranges though. Love both
(Oh BTW) That Romulan ship that the little bity (new)old Enterprise took out in the latest Trek movie was bigger than The Executor. ( & could destroy planets. so "neener neener neeeeeeener" LOL (JK)

There was also an episode where they were under attack & Riker turned to Picard smiling & said "They are firing 'Lasers at us sir." To which Picard replied "Really??? How quaint." The Destroyers command & control sucks rocks as well. One little bit A-Wing fighter kamakazi's their Bridge & the whole thing crashes & burns????? Common??? (Oh that was a SUPER Star Destroyer sorry)

Darth Vader solos.

Thinking about it....



The Enterprise would probably lose but they could transport out the entire crew from the Star Destroyer before the Star Destroyer's weapons got into range.


A mass transport was done by Voyager in the 7th season: they transported over 200 people at once right before the other ship exploded. The reason it is not done very often is due to the size of the Transporter Pattern Buffers: they run out of space. But a temporary override can be put into place to use the buffers of some other stuff to do an mass emergency transport.


The transporter range is much farther than the weapons' ranges for the Star Destroyer.


So...empty Star Destroyer....can't do much.


Enterprise D wins.


Remember, in versus threads, all parties use everything at their disposal.




Also, I remember Riker saying, in one of the TNG episodes, that the D could wipe the face of a planet clean with their phasers in just a few moments. That makes sense if you consider that they can widen the beam from orbit and pump a lot of power into it. What's the point of a Death Star when you can use a much much smaller ship, that has much more varied technology, that can get the job done in almost the same time? The planet may be reusable (the targeting computers are extremely precise (see the episode they used the Enterprise to drill into the tectonic plates to alleviate pressure and it had to be precise to less than a meter). Unlike the deathstar which just destroys the planet.

Not even that.

1 photon torpedo + travelling at warp speeds = atomized Star Destroyer

If Vader is in command or Thrawn, then Feds even with Picard do not stand a chance. Vader with the Force and Chiss combat tactics trump anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thinking about it....



The Enterprise would probably lose but they could transport out the entire crew from the Star Destroyer before the Star Destroyer's weapons got into range.


A mass transport was done by Voyager in the 7th season: they transported over 200 people at once right before the other ship exploded. The reason it is not done very often is due to the size of the Transporter Pattern Buffers: they run out of space. But a temporary override can be put into place to use the buffers of some other stuff to do an mass emergency transport.


The transporter range is much farther than the weapons' ranges for the Star Destroyer.


So...empty Star Destroyer....can't do much.


To play devil's advocate, a star destroyer has a crew in the low tens of thousands range.

Transporting 200 some people once is well short of transporting 35,000 people at once, or transporting 35,000 people in ~200 increments when just transporting the ~200 once is an emergency maneuver that wouldn't be attempted except as a last resort.

I won't contest the rest of your argument, this bit just struck me as odd.

Also (and it's possible I'm conflating Star Trek with Stargate here) I'm pretty sure that transporters can't snag targets behind shields, which the Star Destroyers have.

I would say the enterprise hands down, I bet ten bucks they don't have to even fire a single shot, More then likly they would just heck the systems on the destroyer and disable the ship ST tech had a lot of WTF tech that just popped up when needed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision


Also (and it's possible I'm conflating Star Trek with Stargate here) I'm pretty sure that transporters can't snag targets behind shields, which the Star Destroyers have.

They can't, until Data figures out the frequency and then bypasses the shield. It's happened before.

Originally posted by Robtard
They can't, until Data figures out the frequency and then bypasses the shield. It's happened before. Star Wars' shields and lasers don't have frequencies.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Star Wars' shields and lasers don't have frequencies.

The blaster bolts I can see. Shielding through as in raising an energy barrier should.

Data > your face

Originally posted by Robtard
The blaster bolts I can see. Shielding through as in raising an energy barrier should.

Data > your face Sorry, they don't. Star Wars seems to function on magic (and I'm not talking about the Force). Deflector shields, laser bolts, lightsaber, repulsorlifts; they all function on... energy. No energy in particular, just energy. And sometimes usually something to do with crystals. There's no "frequency" of Star Wars energy, just "POWAH!" and the need for m0Ar of it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To play devil's advocate, a star destroyer has a crew in the low tens of thousands range.

Transporting 200 some people once is well short of transporting 35,000 people at once, or transporting 35,000 people in ~200 increments when just transporting the ~200 once is an emergency maneuver that wouldn't be attempted except as a last resort.



That's to safely, with no loss, transport 200 people. Since the transporter range is much farther out than the weapons' range of the Star Destroyer, they can just sit out a bit of the way...transporting thousands of people at once, into space, without worrying about keeping their patterns in perfect order. No need to keep them alive, right?



Originally posted by Omega Vision
I won't contest the rest of your argument, this bit just struck me as odd.

Also (and it's possible I'm conflating Star Trek with Stargate here) I'm pretty sure that transporters can't snag targets behind shields, which the Star Destroyers have.

Those are different types of shields. Not the same as Star Trek shields.

The particle shields are probably the worst defense against transporters. Star Trek ships can transport through more than 2 KM of rock at a time: no amount of a thin film of excited particles will prevent the transporters from working.

Next, ray shields can be bypassed with proton torpedoes quite easily (good bye, Death Star). Every other episode has the Star Trek transporters beaming people through some sort of radiation or interference. Ray shields stand no chance.


Also, why are shields developed in a way to prevent transporters from working in Star Trek?

Originally posted by Robtard
The blaster bolts I can see. Shielding through as in raising an energy barrier should.

Data > your face

I just had to bump this thread because of the sheer stupidity here.

Do you seriously think that all sci-fi shields must have a "frequency", just because they exist in the pseudoscientific world of Star Trek, where phasers are described as "phase coherent" lasers, even though lasers are already phase coherent?

Do you even understand what the word "frequency" means? On exactly what basis do you assume that a geometric shield somehow has a "frequency", and even if it did, how would this be even remotely relevant?

You do realize that altering a weapon's frequency does nothing to change its power output, right?

Star Destroyer. Especially if Thrawn is on board.

Originally posted by Robtard
They can't, until Data figures out the frequency and then bypasses the shield. It's happened before.

Adding to my previous contention that SW shields don't have frequencies, as they are never mentioned or suggested, and there is nothing inherent in the known characteristics of a shield that would require its having a "frequency" any more than one would expect a sword to have a "frequency"...

Even without shielding, a star destroyer's hull is too strong for any photon torpedo to penetrate. We're talking about a disparity in firepower and defensive capabilities of multiple orders of magnitude; a single heavy turbolaser bolt could yield teratons, more energy than what is released in the Enterprise's entire torpedo complement.

This is confirmed in Saxton's ICS's, and if you refuse to accept them as canon, you still have the numerous examples in the films of ships demonstrating truly astronomical power generation capabilities, such as the Death Star's e38 joule superlaser, or the imperial fleet's circumnavigating Endor in under a minute.

It's like matching the Yammato against a ship of the line.

Originally posted by Master Han
I just had to bump this thread because of the sheer stupidity here.

Do you seriously think that all sci-fi shields must have a "frequency", just because they exist in the pseudoscientific world of Star Trek, where phasers are described as "phase coherent" lasers, even though lasers are already phase coherent?

Do you even understand what the word "frequency" means? On exactly what basis do you assume that a geometric shield somehow has a "frequency", and even if it did, how would this be even remotely relevant?

You do realize that altering a weapon's frequency does nothing to change its power output, right?

Dude, I love you, but you are a *****! Wooow, go easy.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Dude, I love you, but you are a *****! Wooow, go easy. Yeah, he does that.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, he does that.

Ah Lord Lucian, my old ally. Whatever happened to the chap carrying books in the library?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, he does that.

Don't you think lying and making shit up, as "robtard" was doing, is less ethically acceptable than asking condescending rhetorical questions?

See what I did there...

Time travel! The Enterprise D has it.... The Empire does not!

Originally posted by Reflection
Time travel! The Enterprise D has it.... The Empire does not!

Except that Star Trek time travel just creates alternate timelines, it doesn't actually change anything per-say.

Furthermore, it's quite a stretch to say that the Enterprise could use whatever device-of-the-week to time travel before the star destroyer blows it to atoms with its orders of magnitude superior weaponry.

Originally posted by Master Han
Except that Star Trek time travel just creates alternate timelines, it doesn't actually change anything per-say.

Furthermore, it's quite a stretch to say that the Enterprise could use whatever device-of-the-week to time travel before the star destroyer blows it to atoms with its orders of magnitude superior weaponry.

Hmmm, Star Trek 'Enterprise' had time travel being very relevant to specific timelines with the 'temporal cold war'. Although I'll grant you the recent events in the movies contradict this somewhat. If they go back unopposed they could simply prevent the Empire happening and defeat not just the Star Destroyer, but the entire Empire. The City on the Edge of Forever also showed events in the past being altered and then changed back.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ah Lord Lucian, my old ally. Whatever happened to the chap carrying books in the library? Turns out it was just cartoon Macaulay Culkin.


Originally posted by Master Han
Don't you think lying and making shit up, as "robtard" was doing, is less ethically acceptable than asking condescending rhetorical questions?

See what I did there... Sure. Makes you more of an *sshole, though.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sure. Makes you more of an *sshole, though.

Meh. I'm really nice in real life, and to most people online. But I feel no need to pamper debaters that casually lie and misrepresent facts. The internet =/= RL social settings.

Yeah, you're a keyboard warrior.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, you're a keyboard warrior.

Because you were ultra-courteous to me in our little dispute. Not like you initiated the insults, or anything.

And whether I'm a "keyboard warrior" has no relevance to whether or not my facts are accurate, just so you know.

Time travel in Star Trek only created an alternate universe for the JJ-verse. Almost every other instance impacted the main timeline.

Originally posted by Master Han
Because you were ultra-courteous to me in our little dispute. Not like you initiated the insults, or anything.

And whether I'm a "keyboard warrior" has no relevance to whether or not my facts are accurate, just so you know. No. But now you need to improve your discernment of written intentions, and scale back the pretentious d-baggery. That'll take some time and trial 'n error.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No. But now you need to improve your discernment of written intentions, and scale back the pretentious d-baggery. That'll take some time and trial 'n error.

When I specifically addressed your accusations of my making strawman distortions and pointed out that you shifted your position and conveniently ignored obvious factual errors in your argument, you responded with the classic "vaguely restate my original position and declare victory" tactic.

Which...hey, you're doing again here. Right after I point out that you were a far bigger douche than I was and initiated the hostility, you respond by...restating your contention without any semblance of addressing the point.

Do you really think the "I work in mysterious ways" bluffing tactic hasn't been tried before?

No, but I'm the only one who's ever got it to work. Patent's pending.

Originally posted by Master Han
I just had to bump this thread because of the sheer stupidity here.

Do you seriously think that all sci-fi shields must have a "frequency", just because they exist in the pseudoscientific world of Star Trek, where phasers are described as "phase coherent" lasers, even though lasers are already phase coherent?

Do you even understand what the word "frequency" means? On exactly what basis do you assume that a geometric shield somehow has a "frequency", and even if it did, how would this be even remotely relevant?

You do realize that altering a weapon's frequency does nothing to change its power output, right? Originally posted by Master Han
Adding to my previous contention that SW shields don't have frequencies, as they are never mentioned or suggested, and there is nothing inherent in the known characteristics of a shield that would require its having a "frequency" any more than one would expect a sword to have a "frequency"...

Even without shielding, a star destroyer's hull is too strong for any photon torpedo to penetrate. We're talking about a disparity in firepower and defensive capabilities of multiple orders of magnitude; a single heavy turbolaser bolt could yield teratons, more energy than what is released in the Enterprise's entire torpedo complement.

This is confirmed in Saxton's ICS's, and if you refuse to accept them as canon, you still have the numerous examples in the films of ships demonstrating truly astronomical power generation capabilities, such as the Death Star's e38 joule superlaser, or the imperial fleet's circumnavigating Endor in under a minute.

It's like matching the Yammato against a ship of the line.

You're just making up a lot of shit and trying to hide it under a lot of words while applying demeaning tactics for deflection purposes. That's silly and not original. eg "Geometric shield" on the surface it looks fancy, by really, you just said "shape" + "shield". Didn't mention anything of power out, so that's a strawman, but I'm sure that was your intention, all part of the deflection tactics.

Now you're just rehashing old Stardestroyer.net and the like talking points and using silly "just too powerful for Star Trek to do anything" rhetoric.

Tell you what, get a valid point and then rant.

hewhoknowsall?

Yeah I've been wondering if it's Rudy too.

This talk of "frequencies" is not very relevant to the point that the ISD could vaporize the Enterprise with a single medium turbolaser bolt, based not only on the ICS, but on calculations and scalings from acceleration feats seen in the original movies. Nonetheless...


tl;dr version: read a science textbook, shields do not have frequencies, except in Star Trek's odd pseudoscientific world. They are never mentioned in Star Wars.




Originally posted by Robtard
You're just making up a lot of shit and trying to hide it under a lot of words while applying demeaning tactics for deflection purposes. That's silly and not original. eg "Geometric shield" on the surface it looks fancy, by really, you just said "shape" + "shield". Didn't mention anything of power out, so that's a strawman, but I'm sure that was your intention, all part of the deflection tactics.

Now you're just rehashing old Stardestroyer.net and the like talking points and using silly "just too powerful for Star Trek to do anything" rhetoric.

Tell you what, get a valid point and then rant.


This actually has nothing to do with my point whatsoever.

The point is that you have absolutely no clue what the word "frequency" actually means. You seem to be under the impression that it's a property all hypothetical energy shields must carry, when in reality, precisely the opposite is true; there's no reason to believe that a shaped, stationary, physical barrier would have an attribute associated with waves, and even if it did, "matching" it would make little to no difference. Star Trek's use of shield frequencies is a brain bug, not a universal constant.

If you wish to prove me wrong, go ahead and find a single example in Star Wars lore where shields are described as having frequencies.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
(he's a sock! wah!)

...OK, a quick google search later, I'm wondering if you're on crack.

Do this guy's posts even remotely resemble my writing style?

Even more interestingly, to hint at my age, I would have had to be less than 13 to have registered at his registration date.

EDIT: see my thread http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f6/t583560.html for calcs

Originally posted by Master Han
...OK, a quick google search later, I'm wondering if you're on crack.

Do this guy's posts even remotely resemble my writing style?

Even more interestingly, to hint at my age, I would have had to be less than 13 to have registered at his registration date. That's not a hint, that's a flat out admission that you're 18. Which is fitting, since he had the mentality of a young teenager, and you have the writing quirks of an older teenager trying to prove/show off how smart he thinks he is. Your thread about PT plot holes is a glaring example of that (why re-list everything Plinkett's reviews raised and simultaneously admit you know about Plinkett's reviews--either you're trying to siphon off vicarious credit to prop up your ego, or you're hoping no one on this forum knew about them before you came along).

Nobody who's confident in themselves or their public image would open a rebuttal by saying "how long they've been debating". You have the attitude of someone who feels he is well suited to inform people, instruct them on things they obviously know nothing about, and is under the impression that he's unique in some intellectual way and most demonstrate it to tEh internet. That's likely the explanation behind your sudden turn to the science field and power-output arguing in that thread^, instead of realizing that poetic license and material one-upmanship was the issue being criticized.

You're a teenager, and a very typical one. That's great kid, don't get cocky.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's not a hint, that's a flat out admission that you're 18.

http://i.imgur.com/AAtfs.jpg

Who's the one trying to ego-stroke now?

"hewhoknowsall" registered on Oct 26th, 2008. I indicated that, in order to have been him, I would have had to have been less than 13 when I supposedly registered, which would put 17 at the upper limit of my age. I suppose now, you're going to think that I'm "showing off" to you, because I know how to do simple arithmetic.



Actually, more than half of the plot holes listed in the aforementioned thread weren't present in RLM's reviews, so IDK why you're attempting to pseudo-psycho-analyze me here. As usual, these "every action you make has a secret motive that reveals your deepest worries and self esteem issues" hypotheses are founded on conveniently forgetting facts.



It's interesting that you so adamantly write monotonous paragraphs where you jam-pack as many ad hominems and generalized declarations of victory as you can, but fail to devote any effort to actually addressing the arguments. That is, in our exchange regarding EU Force feats, you pretentiously evaded your obvious factual errors ("newton's laws don't exist in Star Wars", and instead resorted to responding to every rebuttal by vaguely restating your position and whining that I didn't understand it, with the same reasoning that I had just addressed in the previous post!

BTW, exactly what the **** do you think your rant about psychopaths and pseudo-philosophic distinctions between "empathy" and "sympathy" were, but ego stroking? How about your own ****ery here? Do you think you're the first person to ironically try accusing another person of ego-stroking to satisfy his own erection?

But, since most posters around here have complimented my work, with you being one of the only ones to indicate otherwise...yeah, it looks like you've made an imaginary enemy out of me based on your issues with another poster.

I PM'd you a reply.



Star Destroyer wins for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Master Han

This actually has nothing to do with my point whatsoever.

The point is that you have absolutely no clue what the word "frequency" actually means. You seem to be under the impression that it's a property all hypothetical energy shields must carry, when in reality, precisely the opposite is true; there's no reason to believe that a shaped, stationary, physical barrier would have an attribute associated with waves, and even if it did, "matching" it would make little to no difference. Star Trek's use of shield frequencies is a brain bug, not a universal constant.

If you wish to prove me wrong, go ahead and find a single example in Star Wars lore where shields are described as having frequencies.


Your point was to talk a lot of nonsense disguised as knowledge and intelligent and then be an ass. Just as before.

More of "you don't know what frequency means!" ranting. Get over yourself already. Making sock after sock to rehash the same failed arguments.

Star Wars doesn't get into the technical bits nearly as much as Star Trek. But if you want to insist that an energy field doesn't have a frequency because someone didn't say "its frequency goes to 11", fair enough. Then there is nothing for the Enterprise to overcome and it can simply be bypassed via the transporter.

If you wish to prove me wrong, go ahead and find a single example in Star Wars lore where shields resisted a transporter.

Originally posted by Robtard
But if you want to insist that an energy field doesn't have a frequnecy, fair enough.


Um, what? You start your post off by complaining that my rebuttal was meaningless, and then suddenly concede the point? That sort of suggests that my response was anything but.

And understand burden of proof; the burden of proof is on you to establish that a star destroyer's shields would have a property that is antithetical and meaningless in relevance to said shields. Just because Star Trek has it, doesn't mean every other sci-fi universe has to follow down the same path.



That the shields don't have frequencies doesn't mean that they don't perform the function of acting as physical barriers. Since transporters are routinely stopped by random natural phenomena and even the slightest level of jamming...

And what would it do, anyway, if we assume that transporters would magically work through SW shields, but not ST shields, because of magical frequencies (when they have been disrupted by objects with no such property)?

A single medium turbolaser can vaporize the Enterprise.

1. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f6/t583560.html

^examples of power generation capabilities that a star destroyer can siphon to its engines; now, logically, a warship would be able to divert at least 1% of its power to its main guns, which is already in excess of the highest estimations of the Enterprise's shield strength.

2. Asteroid vaporization calculations.

3. We know from the RotS novelization that even light turbolasers (they were firing at starfighters, so they can't be heavy) can vaporize small towns, ie., megaton range.

4. Base delta zeroes - various sources agree that a star destroyer can turn the surface of a planet into molten slag and even blow away its atmosphere within hours.

5. Scaling from the Death Star's superlaser.

--------------

...thus, the Enterprise will die in a fiery ball long before it can get its transporters running, mobilize a boarding crew, lock onto the star destroyer, figure out where they can safely transport the men/bomb/whatever, and then commence the operation.

And even if they managed to get men on board, the boarding crew would:

1. Be heavily outnumbered
2. Be in foreign territory and have no defenses against ray shields or other traps
3. Have no idea where the **** they're going.

Originally posted by Master Han
Um, what? You start your post off by complaining that my rebuttal was meaningless, and then suddenly concede the point? That sort of suggests that my response was anything but.

And understand burden of proof; the burden of proof is on you to establish that a star destroyer's shields would have a property that is antithetical and meaningless in relevance to said shields. Just because Star Trek has it, doesn't mean every other sci-fi universe has to follow down the same path.



That the shields don't have frequencies doesn't mean that they don't perform the function of acting as physical barriers. Since transporters are routinely stopped by random natural phenomena and even the slightest level of jamming...

And what would it do, anyway, if we assume that transporters would magically work through SW shields, but not ST shields, because of magical frequencies (when they have been disrupted by objects with no such property)?

A single medium turbolaser can vaporize the Enterprise.

1. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f6/t583560.html

^examples of power generation capabilities that a star destroyer can siphon to its engines; now, logically, a warship would be able to divert at least 1% of its power to its main guns, which is already in excess of the highest estimations of the Enterprise's shield strength.

2. Asteroid vaporization calculations.

3. We know from the RotS novelization that even light turbolasers (they were firing at starfighters, so they can't be heavy) can vaporize small towns, ie., megaton range.

4. Base delta zeroes - various sources agree that a star destroyer can turn the surface of a planet into molten slag and even blow away its atmosphere within hours.

5. Scaling from the Death Star's superlaser.

--------------

...thus, the Enterprise will die in a fiery ball long before it can get its transporters running, mobilize a boarding crew, lock onto the star destroyer, figure out where they can safely transport the men/bomb/whatever, and then commence the operation.

And even if they managed to get men on board, the boarding crew would:

1. Be heavily outnumbered
2. Be in foreign territory and have no defenses against ray shields or other traps
3. Have no idea where the **** they're going.

Wrong. It's conceding to your specific logic to flip it back on you and show its faults.

You still don't like it when your own logic is directed back at you. Burden of proof is on you. If it's for me to prove that an energy barrier would have a frequency because it was never specifically stated, then the burden of proof on frequency-lacking ST shields stopping a transporter is on YOU. So get to it.

Yeah, yeah, everyone's that debated SW Vs ST has seen the Stardestroyer.net and the like calculations before. Rehashing them again and again proves nothing, just as before. We've done the "too powerful" and "single shot destroys all of Star Trek" go-around before.

Um, no. The Enterprise can function while at warp speeds and interact with objects in normal space time. A Star Destroyer would have one option when trying to deal with an Enterprise D at warp, jumping to hyper and fleeing. All this time and you still don't know the basics of ST.

BTW a photon torpedo(you call them bombs) transported directly onboard would be devastating to a SD. Your dismissive approach of this is telling of your deep Star Wars bias.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it's for me to prove that an energy barrier would have a frequency because it was never specifically stated,


Why the conditional? It's no less obvious than it being on you if you were to claim that energy shields run on energizer bunnies, which makes just as much sense. That Star Trek inexplicably fails at middle school Science doesn't mean we have to as well.




Complaining about an argument being "rehashed" against another set of debaters isn't a valid response unto itself (I can do the same against your whole transporters gig). I'm so sorry if you're too lazy to do so, but you actually have to posit an intelligible argument to support your claim. I provided you with various evidence and had even taken up the trouble of mathematically calculating engine power from specific examples. All you have to do is explain why these figures don't lead to the obvious conclusion.



1. Show me a single instance of the Enterprise engaging, from warp speed, and firing on a target that is not at warp speed. The Picard Maneuver is effectively precisely because "warp strafing" is apocryphal.

2. The maths shows that the Enterprise's photon torpedos won't even scratch a star destroyer's hull. Go ahead and actually address the numbers, if you wish.

And in the meanwhile, I'll throw out another one: the Death Star's shields tank Alderaan's e38 joule explosion without any apparent harm (its namesake novel confirms that the battle station did not jump to hyperspace to evade the debris, but rather that its shields registered impacts the size of mountain fragments).

A quick calculation leads to the conclusion that the Death Star, which destroyed Alderaan from six planetary diameters, must have absorbed at least e30 joules. Scaling reactor sizes to a star destroyer implies that an ISD can absorb levels of energy comparable to the power output of a small star.

In comparison, the Enterprise is seriously threatened by a 20th century nuke.

Originally posted by Master Han
Why the conditional? It's no less obvious than it being on you if you were to claim that energy shields run on energizer bunnies, which makes just as much sense. That Star Trek inexplicably fails at middle school Science doesn't mean we have to as well.

Complaining about an argument being "rehashed" against another set of debaters isn't a valid response unto itself (I can do the same against your whole transporters gig). I'm so sorry if you're too lazy to do so, but you actually have to posit an intelligible argument to support your claim. I provided you with various evidence and had even taken up the trouble of mathematically calculating engine power from specific examples. All you have to do is explain why these figures don't lead to the obvious conclusion.


1. Show me a single instance of the Enterprise engaging, from warp speed, and firing on a target that is not at warp speed. The Picard Maneuver is effectively precisely because "warp strafing" is apocryphal.

2. The maths shows that the Enterprise's photon torpedos won't even scratch a star destroyer's hull. Go ahead and actually address the numbers, if you wish.

And in the meanwhile, I'll throw out another one: the Death Star's shields tank Alderaan's e38 joule explosion without any apparent harm (its namesake novel confirms that the battle station did not jump to hyperspace to evade the debris, but rather that its shields registered impacts the size of mountain fragments).

A quick calculation leads to the conclusion that the Death Star, which destroyed Alderaan from six planetary diameters, must have absorbed at least e30 joules. Scaling reactor sizes to a star destroyer implies that an ISD can absorb levels of energy comparable to the power output of a small star.

In comparison, the Enterprise is seriously threatened by a 20th century nuke.

Still trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Stating the obvious is stating the obvious, you're a sock rehashing the same failed arguments yet again. Still with the "you're not smart" rhetoric trying to once again turn this into a shit-fling. It was old 2 years ago, chap.

Still trying to take credit for calculations others have done. Listen, no one (even the SW wins people) are impressed with your eIntelligence peacocking.

The Enterprise can fire weapons at warp, just deal with it. Your "it can only fire at other at warp objects" is a sad attempt at downplaying. Hint: hitting a slower moving object is generally not harder than hitting a faster moving object.

You're still cherry-picking and going with lowest possible showings for ST, cos it fits your silly bias. Voyager destroyed a massive asteroid and the yield of the torpedo was calculated at 100 megatons. ST-v-SW.net, iirc.

The Death Star isn't in this and it's considerably more powerful than a SD.

Kirk's Enterprise (TOS) took hits from a planet busting entity, that's a 23rd century exploration ship.

Originally posted by Robtard
Film science/mechanics.


You know, I had a pretty hefty rebuttal typed up to your utterly devoid of substance reply, but after rereading this sentence fragment...

"film science/mechanics" isn't an intelligible rebuttal. The math is there, the science is there, you can't dismiss it on grounds of "it's just fiction" because you conceded the validity of such scientific approaches when you cited darkstar's site, which assumes the same validity of basic physical principles as my own calculations do. So unless if you wish to be a blatant hypocrite and use vaporization calcs (100 megatons) while refusing to accept my own, actually post a comprehensive reply, or this debate is over.

And while your "you copied your shit!" smokescreen is both in bad sport and a blatant ad hominem fallacy, it warrants a reply for the sake of truthfulness: I whipped out a calculator and performed all the permutations myself. I watched the videos and timed incidents personally. I've also posted findings on a joint account on spacebattles.com.

It's obvious from your reply that you have no capacity to actually understand or rebute any of my calculations, and so must resort to:

1. Vaguely declaring that someone else has already done so, and that they are therefore "old" and "rehashed".

2. Ad hominems and sophistic rhetoric with little real substance.

Take, for example, your obsession with warp strafing. I've asked you, what - 3 times now, to provide a single example of a ship in warp strafing a target in realspace, and you haven't even produced an episode name! If this is such a devastating and potent tactic, you'd expect it to be regularly used on planets and space stations...oh, wait, it isn't.

-----

So, I'll try one more time:

“1. Robtard”, please kindly explain to me how the star destroyers in RotJ circumnavigate Endor in under a minute to encircle the Rebel fleet without each using power comparable to a small star, as basic mathematics would tell us.

2. Kindly explain how the X wings circumnavigate Yavin Prime in under 6 minutes, and then decelerate to match speeds with the Death Star moving in the opposite direction, without possessing truly astronomical power.

Yet when it comes to Star Trek, you'll dismiss it as silly film science. So keep eating that bias sandwich while masturbating the "too powerful" stick, same as before. Always with the highest showings for the franchise you love and lowest for the one you dislike.

And do all the flips you like, it's obvious you're Hewhoknowsall, Rudy and who knows how many other socks you've used to come back here rehashing the same failed arguments cos you got a massive chip on your shoulder. FFS, after the mod brought the hammer down in that previous thread cos of the rampant shit-flinging, you resorting to spam PMing me the same arguments over and over.

BTW, the "my calculator" comment was funny and a nice touch.

...ok, you're not even bothering to debate the evidence of the subject matter anymore. If you have some quarrel with me, use the PM system. We're discussing "Star Destroyer vs Enterprise D".

The on-screen, G canon evidence demonstrates that a star destroyer can circumnavigate an Earth-sized planet in under a minute. The on screen, G-canon evidence demonstrates that even X wings can circumnavigate gas giants within minutes. Basic extrapolation from simplistic physics leads to the conclusion that a star destroyer can generate power comparable to a small star, a conclusion that you cannot refute with ad hominems or appeals to incredulity.

If you actually have an argument related to the subject matter to post, feel free to do so. Preferably by addressing my calculations.

Now back to the "you started it" when it's clear you're Hewhoknowsall back to flame-rage ST vs SW yet again and why you necroed a thread; opened up with insults and such toward me, cos of our previous history.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can repeat from other sites and use "basic extrapolation from simplistic physics" claims in some silly attempt to be the eGenius online warrior, got it; no one cares. The Vostok 3KA took just under 90 mins to circumnavigate the Earth in 1961.

I'm new to the Star Trek Universe, but on the whole, it does seem that the science of the Star Trek Universe is more credible, as has been stated in a previous post, Star Wars seems to run on magic at times, it is essentially a fantasy movie set in space. My personal preference is Star Wars though. Star Destroyers just look awesome

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can repeat from other sites and use "basic extrapolation from simplistic physics" claims in some silly attempt to be the eGenius online warrior, got it; no one cares. The Vostok 3KA took just under 90 mins to circumnavigate the Earth in 1961.

Your math skills need some work.

Such a feat would require a fabulous mean acceleration of...

1.36 m/s^2.

It massed 2270 kilograms, so the average power would be...

10 megajoules? And this is under the erroneous assumption that the capsule circumnavigated the Earth under its own power without any usage of the Earth's gravity for centripetal force.

----

So, how does this compare to navigating a gas giant within 5 minutes again?



Originally posted by samhain
I'm new to the Star Trek Universe, but on the whole, it does seem that the science of the Star Trek Universe is more credible

Not at all. Star Trek's "science" involves the main characters' finding "cracks" in event horizons and jumbling definitions of "joules" and "watts".

Originally posted by Master Han
Not at all. Star Trek's "science" involves the main characters' finding "cracks" in event horizons and jumbling definitions of "joules" and "watts".

As opposed to Star Wars, which concisely explains everything? I stand by my original post my friend.

Originally posted by samhain
As opposed to Star Wars, which concisely explains everything? I stand by my original post my friend.

Not trying to explain sci-fi tech (in the limited time of the movies) is far better than literally making shit up and committing outright factual errors to try to sound smart.

Similarly, a guy who admits that he doesn't know why his car broke down is more trustworthy than a guy who makes up a story about his neighbor's sabotaging it.

I'd side with the Enterprise D. If necessary metaphasic shielding should hold up well to turbo laser fire (shielding capable of holding up to entering a star's corona; it was shown that Geordi had created a program for those shield mods and it was used by Dr. Crusher to hide in a star from the Borg that Lore had taken control of), the Enterprise is faster and more maneuverable than a Star Destroyer, the ship is far more versatile in it's offensive capabilities, and if a worse case scenario were to occur I wouldn't put it passed Picard to make a run for it (Star Destroyer can't keep up), separate the saucer section and place his crew on it, and ram the drive section of the Enterprise into the Star Destroyer at maximum warp. There's also numerous deflector dish, holographic, phase manipulation, and teleporter shenanigans for the Enterprise to pull from based on all the Swiss army knife tricks they were able to do on the show.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
If necessary metaphasic shielding should hold up well to turbo laser fire (shielding capable of holding up to entering a star's corona; it was shown that Geordi had created a program for those shield mods and it was used by Dr. Crusher to hide in a star from the Borg that Lore had taken control of),

Being able to enter a star's corona isn't very impressive when you look at the energies required to do so, and by no means lead to being able to tank teraton, gigaton or even megaton firepower.

Furthermore, a ship significantly smaller than a star destroyer does the same in the Clone Wars series without any difficulty.




No, it isn't. The Enterprise has never demonstrated very impressive maneuverability in onscreen engagements, and star destroyers have been shown circumnavigating planets in seconds.



Is it now? In additional to the star destroyer's guns being literally orders of magnitude more powerful and having few ammunition limitations compared to the Enterprise's photon torpedos, your star destroyer would have a large complement of tie fighters, bombers, interceptors and defenders armed with thermonuclear warheads.



Unfortunately for Picard, "Swiss army knife tricks" won't consistently defeat superior shielding and firepower. Given a star destroyer's stated capacity to turn a planet's surface into molten slag in a matter of hours, there's no reasonable scenario in which the Enterprise survives long enough to try any ramming or transporter maneuvers.

Yeah.

And I disagree with all your points.

Yeah.

And some elaboration would be appreciated.

Because your argument seems centered around focusing on what the Enterprise can do, while assuming that the ISD will simply sit there and twiddle its figurative thumbs while Picard and his crew resolve to ram the star destroyer, or try to transporter-through the shields, or whatever. Given that:

1. A star destroyer can turn the surface of a planet into molten slag within a matter of hours.
2. A star destroyer's reactor (powering weapons and shields) has the power output of a small star, based both on official figures from the ICS, scaling from the Death Star, and acceleration feats.
3. Even individual tie bombers can be armed with deadly thermonuclear warheads, and we see even dominion ships struggle mightily to hit significantly clumsier fighters.

all the strategies you've devised for the Federation simply don't have the time to be executed, even if they would have worked.

Originally posted by Master Han
Not trying to explain sci-fi tech (in the limited time of the movies) is far better than literally making shit up and committing outright factual errors to try to sound smart. http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35695852.jpg

Image/image location doesn't work.

I'd like to point out several problems I am seeing in the recent arguments:


1. The Enterprise D has a much longer range of fire than a Star Destroyer. All the Enterprise D has to do is stay out of range and continue to bombard the Star Destroyer.

2. Star Trek shields can most certainly be transported through and it has been done many times. But it requires specific technologies that are not present in the Star Wars universe (more on this, in point 5).

3. The old Enterprise (TOS) could take 90 Photon Torpedoes at once before failing. The general yield of a Photon Torp is 25 isotons. 25 isotons is enough to vape a city in seconds...so roughly as powerful as the most powerful thermonuke weapon ever detonated by humans. The newer ships from the D's era had absurdly more durable shields. To what extent, it is not known. But it was enough to make the old Enterprise's shields look like paper.

4. The shields in Star Trek are made specifically to block certain types of energies (harmful radiations, transporters, and so forth). Star Wars shields will not have been designed to block transporters because they simply do not exist in Star Wars. The argument of their shields blocking transporters is moot. We already know some forms of radiation get through those shields because light is able to reflect off of their ships and reach the "viewer". Unless their shields only allow visible light to pass through the shields, it is impossible case to logically make that the Star Destroyer shields would black transporter shields since the Star Trek shields were specifically designed to block transporters (but later were upgraded enough to allow "acceptable" ships to transport through those shields). In fact, we know Star Wars shields are ineffective against more than just visible light. They are also ineffective against pretty much everything except energy weapons. Kinetic impacts? Nope: no protection. That stuff seems to pass right through. Some types of communications? Nope, those seem to get right through, too. So what DO those shields actually block? Anything? Looks like it only blocks energy based and particle based weapons. That's rather specific. More to the point, they are not designed to block subspace energy-beams. Subspace transmissions and matter-streams don't even exist in Star Wars. Why is this important? Because that's how transporters work: turns matter into energy, sends the matter-stream (which is energy, at this point) through subspace to the destination, pulls it out of subspace at the target, and rematerializes it. On snap, Star Trek haters are going to have to find a new argument because they didn't know how Star Trek worked.

5. The Enterprise D has a shield inverter which can basically redirect high energy particles...Sooo...sooo....plasma weapons would be hilariously useless against the Enterprise D?

6. The metaphasic shields really do provide continuous protection from a star's corona...which is the equivalent of sitting in the hottest portion of a nuke blast, for extended periods of time, over the entire surface of the shields, while also negating the effects of the plasma flow (resisting the "plasma winds" in the corona). Shields "holding steady" under those conditions is not something that can be easily dismissed as being irrelevant to this discussion. It would seem Star Trek shields are much more suited for energy and energy type deflection than kinetic weapons. However, Star Wars shields seem to offer no resistance to kinetic weapons. Rail guns would make short work of Star Wars shields.

7. The Enterprise D has decent maneuverability as it can navigate, with a deft pilot, through subspace anomalies with very limited warning (2 seconds warning). Additionally, Picard seems to have no issue piloting through an asteroid field...unlike his Star Destroyer friends from ESB:

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d5/Picard_pilots_Enterprise.jpg

Hehehehee!

8. It has been posted by me at least 3 times: the Enterprise, alone, is enough to destroy the entire surface of a populated planet in hours as stated by Commander Riker. Seems the firepowers of a Star Destroyer and Enterprise are much more closely matched than thought. Different types of weapons so a direct energy measure is fairly useless. lulz, rofl



Here are the conclusions:

Star Wars shields offer no protections from transporters because their shields were not designed to specifically block transporters like Star Trek shields are.

The Enterprise is much faster and more mobile than Star Destroyers which are very stationary. Moving in a straight line isn't everything. Duh.

Star Trek shields are more than capable of withstanding the equivalent of the constant energy of powerful nuke blasts at the most energetic portion. Constant.

Plasma based weaponry can simply be redirected with the shield inverter making plasma weapons a bad idea.

Star Wars shields offer little to no (most likely no) kinetic resistances while the Star Trek shields do.

Enterprise D has a significantly farther weapons range than a Star Destroyer making the entire thread spite: it has no way to damage the Enterprise as the D can just stay out of range.

Originally posted by Master Han
Being able to enter a star's corona isn't very impressive when you look at the energies required to do so,

By all means, enlighten us on those "energies required to do so".

Hint: your answer will be in joules per second per unit area OR just simply a total joules per second (if you want your answer to be in terms of the entire surface area of the shield's surface). So you'll need the surface area of the elliptical shield of the Enterprise D. You are given that 2 million degrees C is your coronal temp. You'll need to add the force of energy (which is an almost convoluted problem, in and of itself. Hint: Pascals) the average velocity of the plasma winds has on the surface of the elliptical shields. Then you'll need to convert the magnetic field to energy and figure out how much dissipation the shields offer to negate that energy system. THEN you will need to find the other forms of radiation a body will undergo at that proximity to a main-sequence star (x-rays, gamma-rays, etc.) and figure out how much will have to be negated by the shields. You certainly are pretty dang smart if you were able to easily come up with this figures and then easily dismiss them as being "not very impressive". Good luck. Let me know how it goes.

Wow, finally, an intelligible argument from the other side...

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. The Enterprise D has a much longer range of fire than a Star Destroyer. All the Enterprise D has to do is stay out of range and continue to bombard the Star Destroyer.


Incorrect. Are we going by standard observed ranges, or maximum effective ranges? There's a reason why your typical firefight doesn't extend out several hundred meters, despite most modern semi-automatics easily having such ranges.

In 90+% of ST engagement, we observe starships trading shots from a few dozen kilometers apart, at best. Look no further than your typical fleet vs. borg cube engagement; despite tackling an enemy of obviously enormous size, they still feel the need to almost hug their hull. Or look at the battle in Nemesis; cloaked starships engage the Enterprise in such close proximity that they were getting hit by blind firing!

In contrast, whilst we see point-blank exchanges in Star Wars, RotJ, and more specifically the novelization, make it clear that such engagements are last resort desperation tactics, and that the vast majority of battles happen across ranges of hundreds of kilometers (RotS novelization, Star by Star).

Now, you could doubtlessly pull up examples of Star Trek engagements (usually smaller ones) occuring at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers...but you could easily pull off the same for Star Wars (ie., Vader intended to bombard the Rebel base on Hoth from outside the star system, and we have an EU example of a turbolaser shot hitting a YV worldship from light minutes away).



Even ignoring far more conservative firepower estimates based on other evidence...

A medium turbolaser can yield hundreds of gigatons.

And BTW, Leland Chee confirmed on two occasions that the ICS's are not only canon, but are the first place he'd look to in regards to firepower yields.

Also, look at scaling from the Death Star's superlaser.



Let's assume for a brief moment that your extrapolations are correct. (and you make several outright factual errors; for example, Star Wars shields can deflect kinetic impacts; indeed, the Death Star novel describes the battle station's shields' deflecting hypersonic debris the size of mountains following the destruction of Alderaan).


Any tactics that would involve transporters would be far slower and less sure of success than the star destroyer's plan of vaporizing the Enterprise with a single shot.



You're scientifically literate. Surely you know that such a device would have obvious limits, and would not extend towards defending against weaponry orders of magnitude more powerful than any conventional weaponry ever seen used by the Alpha Quadrant powers.

And turbolaser bolts aren't plasma weaponry.



Actually, there's an episode where Data points out that the Enterprise would only last a certain amount of time at a certain distance from a pulsar before its shields would drop. Someone calc'd it on spacebattles to be around half a kiloton (LOL).

I'll see if I can find it.



Not all asteroid fields are alike. The one observed in ESB is almost impossibly violent.



No, not really. "destroy the entire surface" <<<<<< turn it to molten slag, blow away its atmosphere and boil its oceans, all of which have occurred in Star Wars canon.


(cont)

(cont)



Addressed above. Some of these claims, such as turbolasers' being plasma weapons and Star Wars shields offering little kinetic resistance, are just flatout misunderstandings of the universe's lore.



Sorry, I should clarify what I meant by "impressive". By realistic tech standards, it would certainly exceed connotations of the word, but compared to a star destroyer's shielding capabilities...

The Star Wars: Complete Locations (canon) gives the Executor's shielding systems the power output of a medium star, ie. around e26 watts. A star destroyer's reactor is around one hundrenth of the SSD's size, and built from the same technology of the same era.

Similarly, we know that turbolasers on predecessors to the ISD can cause magnitude 10 earthquakes upon impact (RotS: ICS), ie. 15 gigatons being the lower limit to their firepower.

So, unless if you would seriously argue that sitting in the corona of a star would translate to being able to withstand gigatons/teratons of concentrated firepower...you know it doesn't. The output of the entire sun is "only" e26 joules.

Originally posted by Master Han
Incorrect. Are we going by standard observed ranges, or maximum effective ranges? There's a reason why your typical firefight doesn't extend out several hundred meters, despite most modern semi-automatics easily having such ranges.

Incorrect: we are going by onscreen, G-level canon evidence which trumps all others. The ranges are specific and significantly smaller than Star Trek ranges. This is not an argument that can change. I will not address any points to this, any more because it simply cannot be debated (seriously, there's nothing to debate, here).



Originally posted by Master Han
In 90+% of ST engagement, we observe starships trading shots from a few dozen kilometers apart, at best. Look no further than your typical fleet vs. borg cube engagement; despite tackling an enemy of obviously enormous size, they still feel the need to almost hug their hull. Or look at the battle in Nemesis; cloaked starships engage the Enterprise in such close proximity that they were getting hit by blind firing!.


Visual effects don't match up with what was really happening. This is what ST supporters do when they are clearly wrong. For example, Riker says they are "55 seconds to firing range" of the "Lysian Central Command". Visually, they are right there. Yet, they are supposed to be traveling at impulse speed! That speed is generally around 50%-80% the speed of light. 55 seconds is a really really long time. So why did they show the two structures being so visually close? Simple: it was a visual effect to keep the show from being uninteresting. Yes, that's right: Star Trek gets science horribly wrong just like Star Wars (you won't see Trekkies admit this).

So they were either millions of km apart in that episode or the instruments were wrong and they were far closer.

I'll stick with the more correct interpretation. Going back to that episode that Riker served as a Klingon first officer, they talked about getting in to 40,000 km and yet, visually, they were right on top of each other. hmmm....what's up? Oh, right, the director of the episode can't very well show the enterprise as being invisible or the audience would not know what is going on.


Things get muddier during close-combat skirmishes, in Star Trek. Now we are supposed to just believe they are close again just because it works for the audience, visually? It is one of the failings of Star Trek.

Originally posted by Master Han
Now, you could doubtlessly pull up examples of Star Trek engagements (usually smaller ones) occuring at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers...but you could easily pull off the same for Star Wars (ie., Vader intended to bombard the Rebel base on Hoth from outside the star system, and we have an EU example of a turbolaser shot hitting a YV worldship from light minutes away).

Well, I am willing to concede this point if you can make the same argument I am about Star Trek's obvious fail with the visual effects. But, from what I could tell of ESB, they were in orbit above Hoth, not out of the star system.

Originally posted by Master Han
Even ignoring far more conservative firepower estimates based on other evidence...

A medium turbolaser can yield hundreds of gigatons.

And BTW, Leland Chee confirmed on two occasions that the ICS's are not only canon, but are the first place he'd look to in regards to firepower yields.

Also, look at scaling from the Death Star's superlaser.

We have to stick with the G-level canon results, not with what some manual says. It turns out that the Enterprise D can do the same thing to the surface of a planet as a Star Destroyer. It would appear a simply "Joules" measurement is not possible so that argument is out of the window, too. That is one thing with Sci-Fi that makes these discussions sometimes difficult. We could say the average Star Trek phaser emitters are rated at just 1 watt a second but if that is enough to vaporize and entire moon, the values are fairly meaningless and incomparable to Star Wars on-book figures. So, we compare the results.

For proof of these results, the Enterprise D's phasers were significantly modified and toned down to do some drilling on a planet. It a very short period of time, the underpowered and refocused phaser drilled several kilometers into a planet to adjust/relief some of the . So what Riker tells us about a planetary bombardment seems to hold true. So as far as particle weapons are concerned, they are comparable.

I could do the math for that drilling phaser feat. The width of the beam may have been given but I could estimate, visually, the area of the beam as a city appears next to one of the beams in their firing sequence. Just a simple guess: it vastly dwarfs the asteroid vaporization feat we saw in ESB (a feat often quoted and cited as triumphant proof of the superiority of the Star Wars Star Destroyer's fire power). I would say it is an order of magnitude in difference of power (10 times or more). There's that much of a difference. But unlike the Trekkies, I am not going to pretend the phasers are vastly superior: I will conclude, logically, that when pressed for maximum effort, they both can level the entire surface of a planet. So I put them on roughly equal footing.



Originally posted by Master Han
Let's assume for a brief moment that your extrapolations are correct. (and you make several outright factual errors; for example, Star Wars shields can deflect kinetic impacts; indeed, the Death Star novel describes the battle station's shields' deflecting hypersonic debris the size of mountains following the destruction of Alderaan).

That would be an incorrect statement on your part because it contradicts G-level canon. Namely, mere asteroids were harming Star Destroyers and we also have a scene were a Star Destroyer takes a rebel ship right to the control bridge but hits absolutely nothing on its path towards the Star Destroyer. Adding in the EU is fine when it makes clarifications. But adding it in when it directly contradicts G-level Canon is a no-no: you discard the EU in favor of the films.

Originally posted by Master Han
Any tactics that would involve transporters would be far slower and less sure of success than the star destroyer's plan of vaporizing the Enterprise with a single shot.

That's incorrect. Star Destroyer's don't have subspace shielding because sub-space technologies do not exist in Star Wars much less shielding against those technologies. Additionally, we know the range of transporters is 40km because that was Riker's trick in "A Matter of Honor." That's comfortably out of the range of the weapons on a Star Destroyer.



Originally posted by Master Han
You're scientifically literate. Surely you know that such a device would have obvious limits, and would not extend towards defending against weaponry orders of magnitude more powerful than any conventional weaponry ever seen used by the Alpha Quadrant powers.

And turbolaser bolts aren't plasma weaponry.

Incorrect: that type of shield redirected highly energized particles from an entire planet. The real problem, here, is you just did not know what I was talking about so you barked in ignorance. It's okay: we all do that, at times.

So let me put it more clearly, all of the laser cannon fire will easily be redirected by the inverter shield. It's just a shame that Star Wars uses particle weapons of this nature.

"Why do phasers work against those shields?", you might ask. Because it is phased energy and make-believe particles known as "nadions". ROFL

I'll respond to the rest later, but you might want to look at this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f6/t583560.html

Some of my math might be wrong; I did it very hastily (but had individually posted similar calcs on spacebattles, in case if you find others there), but it gives an indication as to the astronomical power generation abilities of SW combat craft, based on evidence from G canon.

Federation ships have plenty of examples of being damn accurate with their weapons; the dominion war doesn't magically erase that.

EDIT: also note the visual effects when an asteroid collides against a star destroyer. It disappears in a blue flash - obvious indication of shielding.

Originally posted by Master Han
Allow me to elaborate.

The Enterprise-D approaches a pulsar from 20 million kilometers, and Data specifies that they would last 18 minutes at that range.



Originally posted by Master Han
"Qeveren" calc'd it this way, and I'm inclined to agree:

"I'm just guessing how big Ent-D's shield bubble is, I'm guesstimating that it's about 50m off the hull, giving it a front-on cross section of ~105000 m^2. So they're soaking up roughly 2.14 GW, also assuming they're pointed directly at the neutron star. Total energy soaked after 18 minutes is 2.3 TJ or... half a kiloton? Seriously? "

This is ignoring plenty of other low-end showings for Star Trek. Trust me, they aren't pretty.

Well, that can almost be ignored. The calculation is nearly impossible to make.

Let me go down all the variables:

Gravity: the gravity at that range would

I came up with 1.32023e+8 for the force of gravity, alone. (that would be in kilogram meters a second squared)

This ignores the Gaussian element, too. Pulsars are also weak Magnatars. I won't go to say that all pulsars are close to the Gaussian power of absurd magnatars: around 10^14 gauss. I cannot even been to calculate all the elements involved in the magnetism involved. I'd go with 10^9 gauss for the pulsar.

Then there's the high frequency radiation which is extremely dense. Then there is the energy and particle propagation from the pulsars which is around .5-.9c.

Then they also rapidly rotate which changes how the energy is output all the time.



Then there is the heat output of a pulsar (again, which constantly changes).


All this together and you've get some absurdly robust shielding going on from the Enterprise D. Something that I find incalculable and immeasurable because there are too many unknown variables. In fact, I think the resistance of that shield is so much stronger than most scenes in films that I'm going to discard that scene and go with other things that are more useable: it is just too far above everything else the shields were shown doing. I don't think the writers knew the Gaussian element of pulsars.





Originally posted by Master Han
This logic doesn't fly. That their kinetic shields are not invincible doesn't mean they don't exist. Especially since the EU has mentioned them repeatedly, which stands unless contradicted, and especially since even the Gungans have a shield generator that can deflect AATs' physical shells.


The logic is fine. They don't resist asteroids even slightly. They don't resist small fighter-craft, even a little bit. They (kinetic shields) have not shown to exist, at all, for Star Destroyers.

Additionally, I reject the idea that the droid bots used physical shells in the films: they simply were not seen.

Add in that that droids simply walked through the shields once they got close enough and you'll see why I think kinetic shields probably don't exist in G-level canon.

I assure you, the energy required to step through the shield is much less than that of a tank shell.

Originally posted by Doctorwho?
Dude...you need to get laid... http://www.lolbrary.com/content/122/epic-high-five-11122.jpg

^the watermark sort of ruins it.

Lol go put some ice on the burn, Rudy.

Coming from a regular of the "Star Wars vs. forum"? Yeah...nah.

Enterprise wins

Indeed.

Picard I believe is more competent of a commander, but sadly still loses here.

im gonna have to go with the enterprise...it can easily outmaneuver
an SD...it has better shielding, and even though i can find no corroborating data, i dont think the SD has the range that the enterprise has

SD's attack from superior range and have better firepower, not counting ridiculous durability.

SD > Enterprise E.

lol .. Picard wins this...

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
lol .. Picard wins this...

Nope.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
SD's attack from superior range and have better firepower, not counting ridiculous durability.

SD > Enterprise E.

That is wrong. Stop being wrong.

Bro, the Enterprise doesnt even come close to the firepower of an ISD. It's a stomp.

So, what is the range of a Star Destroyer's weapons? Because IIRC, Starfleet vessels can engage from hundreds or even thousands of kilometers while I only remember seeing Star Destroyers engage at visual range.

Yeah, the larger Fed ships were able to target effectively at a couple of hundred thousand kilometres.

A SD might be able to fire from further way, just saying ST ships have some impressive range.

In RotJ, the engagement initially takes place tens of thousands of kilometers away and later closes the gap.

I've been rewatching TNG and nearly halfway through season five; at what point does any incarnation of the Enterprise engage at "hundred thousand k plus"?

TOS Enterprise has something like 300,000km range with the phaser banks and about double with torpedos, iirc.

There are instances in TNG/DS9/VOY were "effective range" is stated at nubers over 100,000km. I can't recall exact episodes now, as it's beensome time, but I know I've read on them before.

Originally posted by Robtard
TOS Enterprise has something like 300,000km range with the phaser banks and about double with torpedos, iirc.

There are instances in TNG/DS9/VOY were "effective range" is stated at nubers over 100,000km. I can't recall exact episodes now, as it's beensome time, but I know I've read on them before.

Here.

That site is hilarously biased towards SW.

But again, the numbers I mentioned are mentioned in the ST shows themselves. Stated ST shows > Wong's little wang.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Here. OMG I remember that place! Rudy loved pointing to it.

Originally posted by Robtard
That site is hilarously biased towards SW.

But again, the numbers I mentioned are mentioned in the ST shows themselves. Stated ST shows > Wong's little wang.

TNG "The Wounded" indicates photon torpedo effective range is around 300k, but photon torpedoes have a small yield compared to ISD firepower, are much slower, and can be destroyed.

I can't find any conclusive ranges on phaser banks/arrays, but almost all combat takes place in relatively short ranges, perhaps a few km, and phaser/disruptor weapons can even miss.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
TNG "The Wounded" indicates photon torpedo effective range is around 300k, but photon torpedoes have a small yield compared to ISD firepower, are much slower, and can be destroyed.

I can't find any conclusive ranges on phaser banks/arrays, but almost all combat takes place in relatively short ranges, perhaps a few km, and phaser/disruptor weapons can even miss.

I have very little desire to get into yet another ST v SW debate. Just wanted to let you know that some of your info on ST was incorrect going from what has been stated in the various shows. ST has had extreme ranges of combat mentioned (in the 400,000km range), even though we see ships firing up close many a time cos it makes for a better show.

I wouldn't try and use "can miss" if you're going to debate someone here, cos we regularly see SW ships miss a lot, laughably sometimes.

i think "Captain America 2" Movie - Great

star destroyer loses.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
SD's attack from superior range and have better firepower, not counting ridiculous durability.

SD > Enterprise E. [/QUO


I don't think so the enterprise could hit a pop can from orbit, its range is not only good its Accurate a Star destroyer is NOT.
the destroyer only wins if its a close combat situation. Enterprise wins in a range attack.


Good lord the star destroyer has issues hit slow moving asteroids geeeesh

Any ISD could solo the UFP

Why the necro?

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Why the necro? Cold and compliant. Nothing better.

The Enterprise wins, it's more maneuverable, and from what I saw, it is much faster as well. I'd imagine the Enterprise hitting a Star Destroyer 50 times before the SD hit it once. If asked which ship was more powerful? I'd say the SD was, but what does it matter if it can't hit anything as maneuverable as the Enterprise?

SDs were tanking asteroids and firepower far more significant than than what the Enterprise has been shown to deal with, IIRC. The ESB asteroid scene is particularly telling, whereas in Booby Trap, the crew of the Enterprise was barely able to navigate an asteroid field (and was in grave danger) despite superior helmsman Jean-Luc Picard scouting ahead in a runabout.

Also, SDs can glass planets, which the Enterprise hasn't shown the ability to do.

Come on now. The asteroids wouldn't normally have posed a threat to the Enterprise. The ship was in a trap that was both rapidly draining its energy and threatening the crew with radiation poisoning.

Then why were they crapping their pants about those asteroids?

When has ST tech shown the ability to shrug off asteroids or glass planet surfaces?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Then why were they crapping their pants about those asteroids?

When has ST tech shown the ability to shrug off asteroids or glass planet surfaces?

Some of those asteroids where larger than the ship and their shields were about to fail cos of the trap, iirc.

By taking hits from weapons that could level cities and then some. As far as turning a "planet surface to glass", not sure that was ever specified; I do think some ships are capable of severely damaging planets.

But I don't the the Enterprise D has the fire-power on par with an SD.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some of those asteroids where larger than the ship and their shields were about to fail cos of the trap, iirc.

By taking hits from weapons that could level cities and then some. As far as turning a "planet surface to glass", not sure that was ever specified; I do think some ships are capable of severely damaging planets.

But I don't the the Enterprise D has the fire-power on par with an SD.

Neither do I.

Tbh, I like ST better than SW. But the tech manuals indicate higher power thresholds on shields and weapons for SW, because George Lucas doesn't know scale.

Also a bit of a silly comparison. An SD is a war ship. A Galaxy Class is an exploration/science vessel.


Employee: "Mr. Lucas, how much operational power do you want to give these Star Destroyers?"

G. Lucas: "A lot. Make it a lot."

And given that he has the Death Star is an impossibility, it further skews things.

http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png

Originally posted by Stoic
The Enterprise wins, it's more maneuverable, and from what I saw, it is much faster as well. I'd imagine the Enterprise hitting a Star Destroyer 50 times before the SD hit it once. If asked which ship was more powerful? I'd say the SD was, but what does it matter if it can't hit anything as maneuverable as the Enterprise?

Enterprise won't come remotely close to harming it

It's best weapons are 64 megatons

Meanwhile turbolasers on obsolete transport ships (as opposed to larger and more powerful warships or capital ships) can fire 200 gigatons

Bombardments from VSD's can generate petaton level energies

And the SD's shields can take it's own turbolasers with ease

It could just use it's tractor beams. Hell, even a glancing blow from a heavy turbolaser could vaporise the E-D

Originally posted by Robtard
Some of those asteroids where larger than the ship and their shields were about to fail cos of the trap, iirc.

By taking hits from weapons that could level cities and then some. As far as turning a "planet surface to glass", not sure that was ever specified; I do think some ships are capable of severely damaging planets.

But I don't the the Enterprise D has the fire-power on par with an SD.

have to agree with this but I do think the enterprise D has a outside chance of winning if not at least doing a good deal of damage to a star destroyer if planned properly.


The star destroyer stomps the enterprise gig is getting borderline gay anymore.

The Star Destroyer has the weaponry, shields, and support crafts to overrun a Federation starship. The destroyer will have a hard time with maneuverability and would depend on the captain abilities. It would most likely be a long fight. I would have to say a very long fight as the Destroyers sensors would need to be adjusted for targeting a small warpable ship, besides all the misses from human controlled gunners. The Galaxy class ship would do some damage even though the phasers are use only one type of particle that acts like an energy saving disrupter. The Destroyer laser and turbo laser cannons are full spectrum particle beam cannons that uses some type of shell producing energy to produce a super charged particle bolt. Not to mention the Ion cannons. I think that the Galaxy class would be very busy knocking out the many ties the destroyer carries. And trying to dodge gunboats which Star Destroyers are known to carry. The gunboats also have shields and other necessary goodies that makes it more than equal to a Galaxy Class Starship. Know a Star Destroyer going one on one with a Galaxy Class Starship would be even harder for the Destroyer, which possible could give the win to the Galaxy class Starship. The case would be made with maneuverability and multiple attacks that could put a drain till the shield domes could be blown. Yes, I did my homework a while back.