Star Wars vs Star Trek, Lord of the Rings and Battlestar Galactica

Originally posted by jaden101
Is this your happy place?...When these arguments have been pounded to dust you just repeat them and suddenly they are valid again?

Star Wars has a larger population, more planets, better planetary defenses, better ground forces, more powerful space fleets, a greater industrial capability, better strategists and tacticians, greater logistical capabilities, and a bunch of other advantages.

Population: Star Wars, > 100 quadrillion civilians
Planets: Star Wars, > a million planets
Planetary defenses: Star Wars, a planetary shield, minefields, ion cannons and such.
Ground Forces: Star Wars, futuristic and advanced armies whereas Star Trek doesn't even have artillery or tanks
Space fleets: Star Wars, as shown with the statistics comparison
Industrial capability: Star Wars, millions of planets
Strategists and tacticians: Star Wars, Thrawn, Revan, Ackbar and other great military geniuses
Logistical capabilities: Star Wars, hypermatter, hyperdrive, stasis chambers and such, although Star Trek does have replicators
Economy: Star Wars, millions of planets and species

Originally posted by jaden101
When they assimilated species 259 in their native transmaterial energy plane.

Oh.

So you are using that retarded logic?

By the same argument the SW ships can't penetrate the ST because they're completely different types of shields.

See how I can use that retarded logic too?

My point is that the borg can't adapt to everything.

Only person who has used fan fiction in here is you in your attempt to say that the star forge would be used to create thousands of sun crushers or the empire would make millions of ships.

Actually, those are backed up by evidence.

Yep...Midget bears with sticks and ropes defeating the galaxy's most powerful force ever is definitely more believable.

From what I remember Kilgons wielding melee weapons repeatedly overran Federation defensive positions.

Got weapons that can destroy areas of space hundreds of thousands of times larger than a star system?

No, but how is that all that different from destroying a star system? Star War's inhabited star systems are generally quite a while away from eachother.

Tell you what. I'll go with what's seen on screen and you can go with the speculation.

Huh?

Go back and read about Chroniton torpedoes.

Ok.

Because the planets that it attacks still exist in space.

Huh? Surely if this Kremin time weapon is outside of time in space it would not take time to move or fire...but it does.

Bigger does not always mean more resources.

Lets do the maths shall we?...

25,000 ships or million of vastly bigger ships?

What takes more resources to build....Answers on a postcard.

Yet a Star Wars star destroyer's shields have a heat dissipation of tens of trillions of gigawatts. That equates to quite a bit of exawatts.

And a small outpost of a relatively primitive species in ST uses a cloak that uses millions of exawatts.

Maybe because those millions of ships that the borg supposedly have are mostly smaller craft.

Except, of course, they're not. The cube is the Borg's main vessel. It is vastly more massive than a star destroyer.

I was explaining how Luke has performed feats on par with those you listed and you basically agreed with me.

That's Luke, who is supposed to be one of the most powerful being in ST canon...And he can do the same feat as a species who are so insignificant that they get 1 mention is ST.

Oops, sorry. Well, some sith Force mind dominate powers can be pretty fatal.

I'm sure they can...Which ones are they again?

I've given specific examples...Please do the same.

My point is that the borg can't adapt to everything.

Your argument is that because they can't adapt to everything then that automatically means they can't adapt to SW tech despite the fact that I've shown them to have assimilated similar tech from the ST universe and in fact have even assimilated far more advanced tech.

Actually, those are backed up by evidence.

So the Star Forge was actually used to create Sun Crushers?

No.

Therefor it's hypothetical and conjecture and made up.

Huh?

That about sums up your understanding.

Originally posted by jaden101
Lets do the maths shall we?...

25,000 ships or million of vastly bigger ships?

What takes more resources to build....Answers on a postcard.

There isn't a definitive number for the number of borg cubes.

And a small outpost of a relatively primitive species in ST uses a cloak that uses millions of exawatts.

I guess they aren't relatively primitive then.

Except, of course, they're not. The cube is the Borg's main vessel. It is vastly more massive than a star destroyer.

How do you know that it is the main vessel?

That's Luke, who is supposed to be one of the most powerful being in ST canon...And he can do the same feat as a species who are so insignificant that they get 1 mention is ST.

Correction: in SW

Also, being "insignificant" to the plotline does not always mean less powerful. TOAA is the most powerful being in Marvel and yet is rarely mentioned.

I'm sure they can...Which ones are they again?

I've given specific examples...Please do the same.

In DoE.

Originally posted by jaden101
Your argument is that because they can't adapt to everything then that automatically means they can't adapt to SW tech despite the fact that I've shown them to have assimilated similar tech from the ST universe and in fact have even assimilated far more advanced tech.

"far more advanced tech" huh? Star Wars technology is superior to Star Trek technology in most ways. The borg have not encountered shields as powerful as a Star Wars planetary shield.

So the Star Forge was actually used to create Sun Crushers?

No.

Therefor it's hypothetical and conjecture and made up.

The star forge provided a large supply of resources. Said resources could be used to make sun crushers.

That about sums up your understanding.

lol

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Star Wars has a larger population, more planets, better planetary defenses, better ground forces, more powerful space fleets, a greater industrial capability, better strategists and tacticians, greater logistical capabilities, and a bunch of other advantages.

Population: Star Wars, > 100 quadrillion civilians
Planets: Star Wars, > a million planets
Planetary defenses: Star Wars, a planetary shield, minefields, ion cannons and such.
Ground Forces: Star Wars, futuristic and advanced armies whereas Star Trek doesn't even have artillery or tanks
Space fleets: Star Wars, as shown with the statistics comparison
Industrial capability: Star Wars, millions of planets
Strategists and tacticians: Star Wars, Thrawn, Revan, Ackbar and other great military geniuses
Logistical capabilities: Star Wars, hypermatter, hyperdrive, stasis chambers and such, although Star Trek does have replicators
Economy: Star Wars, millions of planets and species

Hewhoknowsall, you need to calm down, right now, and quit this. It's very inappropriate to troll like this (and, yes, you are) when people are trying to have a fun debate.

Originally posted by Impediment
Hewhoknowsall, you need to calm down, right now, and quit this. It's very inappropriate to troll like this (and, yes, you are) when people are trying to have a fun debate.

Um, I'm the only one arguing for the Star Wars side. Maybe I'm repeating some points too much, but much of this hasn't been countered:

Population: Star Wars, > 100 quadrillion civilians
Planets: Star Wars, > a million planets
Planetary defenses: Star Wars, a planetary shield, minefields, ion cannons and such.
Ground Forces: Star Wars, futuristic and advanced armies whereas Star Trek doesn't even have artillery or tanks
Space fleets: Star Wars, as shown with the statistics comparison
Industrial capability: Star Wars, millions of planets
Strategists and tacticians: Star Wars, Thrawn, Revan, Ackbar and other great military geniuses
Logistical capabilities: Star Wars, hypermatter, hyperdrive, stasis chambers and such, although Star Trek does have replicators
Economy: Star Wars, millions of planets and species

One of the main arguments for Star Trek is that the borg could adapt to any Star Wars weapon, but this is unproven. Besides, how do the borg adapt to a planetary shield? Star Wars shields operate differently and are usually more powerful than Star Trek shields.

If a borg fleet were to appear above Coruscant and try to attack, what about Sidious? The reborn Sidious in DE in a clone body was able to destroy an entire fleet of New Republic ships using a Force storm. The borg can't somehow "adapt" to the Force. Therefore, any borg invasion force would get destroyed by a Force storm.

Luke can create an illusionary fleet of ships, luring the borg into a trap. The borg would see these illusionary ships and send a large amount of borg cubes to attack. Then, centerpoint station could destroy said fleet. The borg would be more wary after, but they would have a hard time figuring out which fleet is real and which is an illusion.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
One of the main arguments for Star Trek is that the borg could adapt to any Star Wars weapon, but this is unproven. Besides, how do the borg adapt to a planetary shield? Star Wars shields operate differently and are usually more powerful than Star Trek shields.

Okay, so, explain.

Originally posted by Impediment
Okay, so, explain.

Aclamator star destroyer shield heat dissipation: around 70 trillion gigawatts
Enterprise D shield heat dissipatioin: around 3000 gigawatts

Aclamator star destroyers have turbolasers generating hundreds of millions of gigawatts of power per shot. There are numerous turbolasers on a star destroyer.

An imperial star destroyer is far more powerful than an Aclamator star destroyer.

Several imperial star destroyers were not capable of penetrating the planetary shield at Hoth.

That's several star destroyers with weapons generating hundreds of millions of gigawatts of power per shot, and yet they are unable to penetrate a Star Wars planetary shields.

Therefore, Star Wars planetary shields are very resistant and far superior to Star Trek shields.

A lot of trekkies (sorry if that's an offensive term, I'm not sure if it is) seem to dispute those figures, saying that they're contradicted by canon sources. However, even the higher reasonable estimates for Star Trek shields are no where near powerful enough to survive any more than a single volley (if even that) from a star destroyer.

Basically, almost all Star Trek ships would get one shotted or 'one volleyed' by a Star Wars star destroyer.

Therefore, in a space engagement Star Wars would almost always win in a match with even numbers and starting positions.

In a ground battle with similar numbers it would also be in favor of Star Wars. Star Wars ground troopers have superior weapons, armor and training compared to Star Trek ground troopers, and Star Wars also has tanks, artillery, walkers and other support vehicles, which are strangely lacking in Star Trek.

I've explained how Star Wars would easily win in a space or ground engagement with compareable numbers and starting positions. Combined with Star War civilizations' superior industrial, economic, strategic, tactical and logistical capabilities as I have also explained in some of my previous posts, and Star Wars wins. The only way that Star Trek could get a majority is with that tiime ship of theirs, but even that hasn't been shown to be able to go through a powerful Star Wars planetary shield.

I think i've found Hewhoknowsall's source of info...

Star Wars vs. Star Trek Technology (Bias toward Star Wars though)

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
I think i've found Hewhoknowsall's source of info...

Star Wars vs. Star Trek Technology (Bias toward Star Wars though)

Partially, yes. I also got my conclusions from research, logic and such.

Claiming that such a source is "biased" towards Star Wars does not render it incorrect unless if such a source is twisting things towards one side, which in this case it is not.

Also, in Star Trek ramming seems to be common, implying that Star Trek shields cannot withstand a ship colliding into it.

Star Wars wins.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Aclamator star destroyer shield heat dissipation: around 70 trillion gigawatts
Enterprise D shield heat dissipatioin: around 3000 gigawatts

Aclamator star destroyers have turbolasers generating hundreds of millions of gigawatts of power per shot. There are numerous turbolasers on a star destroyer.

An imperial star destroyer is far more powerful than an Aclamator star destroyer.

Several imperial star destroyers were not capable of penetrating the planetary shield at Hoth.

That's several star destroyers with weapons generating hundreds of millions of gigawatts of power per shot, and yet they are unable to penetrate a Star Wars planetary shields.

Therefore, Star Wars planetary shields are very resistant and far superior to Star Trek shields.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
A lot of trekkies (sorry if that's an offensive term, I'm not sure if it is) seem to dispute those figures, saying that they're contradicted by canon sources. However, even the higher reasonable estimates for Star Trek shields are no where near powerful enough to survive any more than a single volley (if even that) from a star destroyer.

Basically, almost all Star Trek ships would get one shotted or 'one volleyed' by a Star Wars star destroyer.

Therefore, in a space engagement Star Wars would almost always win in a match with even numbers and starting positions.

In a ground battle with similar numbers it would also be in favor of Star Wars. Star Wars ground troopers have superior weapons, armor and training compared to Star Trek ground troopers, and Star Wars also has tanks, artillery, walkers and other support vehicles, which are strangely lacking in Star Trek.

I've explained how Star Wars would easily win in a space or ground engagement with compareable numbers and starting positions. Combined with Star War civilizations' superior industrial, economic, strategic, tactical and logistical capabilities as I have also explained in some of my previous posts, and Star Wars wins. The only way that Star Trek could get a majority is with that tiime ship of theirs, but even that hasn't been shown to be able to go through a powerful Star Wars planetary shield.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Partially, yes. I also got my conclusions from research, logic and such.

Claiming that such a source is "biased" towards Star Wars does not render it incorrect unless if such a source is twisting things towards one side, which in this case it is not.

Also, in Star Trek ramming seems to be common, implying that Star Trek shields cannot withstand a ship colliding into it.

Star Wars wins.

I'm not saying it's incorrect. In fact I've taken a neutral stance on the site as some of the stuff is quite compelling - suffice to say I'm as big a fan of Star Wars as I am of Star Trek - nevertheless the site seems quite anti-Star Trek.

Terming Trekkies as "them" and "cultists" seems a little harsh and reading it almost seems like it's malicious. For that alone I would go as far to say that it takes some faith to believe everything that is said is 100% true. In fact some of it seems like speculation and conjecture.

Space battle of equal numbers and positions:

Star destroyers attack Star Trek ships from thousands of miles away (as shown in the Battle of Yavin and the Battle of Endor) and destroy them in one hit or one volley (as explained with the huge power and energy advantage Star Wars ships have over Star Trek ships). Star Wars wins.

Land battle of equal numbers and positions:

AT-ATs obliterate the Star Trek troopers from miles away (the Battle of Hoth shows AT-ATs firing from about 17 miles away). Star Trek ground forces would have no effective way to counter this. Star Wars wins.

In both scenarios, Star Wars wins easily.

Anticipated Trekkie (again, I don't know if this term is offensive or not) counter arguments:

"In the Battle of Coruscant star destroyers were fighting very close range" - that's because the CIS needed to get close enought land troops.

"Those figures you showed were inaccurate" - they were accurate because they were from canon sources, and even the more powerful Star Trek ships would not stand much of a chance against Star Wars star destroyers.

"You didn't read the Star Trek novels cause in them Star Trek had some powerful weapons!" - Star Wars novels are considered part of the EU which IS considered to be canon by George Lucas, however, the creators of Star Trek do not consider novels from STAR TREK to be canon.

"The Borg adapt to that!" - The borg can't adapt to everything, and Star Wars technology would be superior to anything the borg have ever been shown to adapt too.

LoL, fail.

BTW, AT-ATs got taken down with a length of rope.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, fail.

BTW, AT-ATs got taken down with a length of rope.

That was a lot of thick durasteel rope which Star Trek does not have.

Nor does Star Trek have fighters capable of carrying those ropes and going around a bunch of AT-AT's without the AT-ATs and supporting forces shooting them down.

Star Wars has powerful AA guns such as those on an AT-AA.

My point still stands:

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Space battle of equal numbers and positions:

Star destroyers attack Star Trek ships from thousands of miles away (as shown in the Battle of Yavin and the Battle of Endor) and destroy them in one hit or one volley (as explained with the huge power and energy advantage Star Wars ships have over Star Trek ships). Star Wars wins.

Land battle of equal numbers and positions:

AT-ATs obliterate the Star Trek troopers from miles away (the Battle of Hoth shows AT-ATs firing from about 17 miles away). Star Trek ground forces would have no effective way to counter this. Star Wars wins.

In both scenarios, Star Wars wins easily.

Anticipated Trekkie (again, I don't know if this term is offensive or not) counter arguments:

"In the Battle of Coruscant star destroyers were fighting very close range" - that's because the CIS needed to get close enought land troops.

"Those figures you showed were inaccurate" - they were accurate because they were from canon sources, and even the more powerful Star Trek ships would not stand much of a chance against Star Wars star destroyers.

"You didn't read the Star Trek novels cause in them Star Trek had some powerful weapons!" - Star Wars novels are considered part of the EU which IS considered to be canon by George Lucas, however, the creators of Star Trek do not consider novels from STAR TREK to be canon.

"The Borg adapt to that!" - The borg can't adapt to everything, and Star Wars technology would be superior to anything the borg have ever been shown to adapt too.

Star Trek has ground vehicles and whatnot, despite your insistence that they don't. They appear in literature, same as your EU. All yo're doing is deciding what counts and what doesn't, out of your own sad benefit.

Ground forces are all but irrelevant though, when they can easily be rendered to shit from orbit. So this whole "grounds forces" angle you're shooting for is pointless.

No, your points are largely based on lies you continue to spout. Jaden took the time to do the math in a detaied long post for you, with you insistance of "SW has more power", you ignored it, as typical, waited a few pages and then returned vomiting the same lies.

So this is what you have, lies and trolling. Out of curiousity, how old are you?