I like how this discussion of ALL tech, is only discussing space side of things. Which if this is all it's gonna be, then SW had won this from the get go given I haven't seen any arguments for ground based forces or any other things of technology for ST.
Other than "Borg assimilates the tech"
Which...now the OP said what was only shown in the movies right?
Ok...so where in the movies, did the Borg face the Rebellion or Empire or Republic?....Oh nowhere.
See the minute you say that, this whole thread falls apart because none of that was in the ST movies at all.
EVEN THEN! That just proves SW has better tech overall if the Borg has to assimilate the tech for their side.
Originally posted by The EllimistCommon sense and portrayals which matters more than unproven maths based on feats IMO. I have told you the reasons why so take it or leave it. I've seen writers use math in their comics which doesn't even add up since the writers don't grasp the math either. It's for dramatic effect and applying real world logic to a universe with fantasy elements is an exercise in futility.
quanchi, just vaguely appealing to "common sense" and mocking calculations and arguments you don't like as "nerd math" doesn't constitute an argument.
Originally posted by ZenwolfThis doesn't matter what the tech covers as long as it is technology. They assimilated Data so it was shown in the film.
I like how this discussion of [b]ALL tech, is only discussing space side of things. Which if this is all it's gonna be, then SW had won this from the get go given I haven't seen any arguments for ground based forces or any other things of technology for ST.Other than "Borg assimilates the tech"
Which...now the OP said what was only shown in the movies right?
Ok...so where in the movies, did the Borg face the Rebellion or Empire or Republic?....Oh nowhere.
See the minute you say that, this whole thread falls apart because none of that was in the ST movies at all.
EVEN THEN! That just proves SW has better tech overall if the Borg has to assimilate the tech for their side. [/B]
I didn't say they were shown to take on the empire but if we do match them up their abilities still pass go. Most here are comparing how they match up so based off going to war against each other so based your logic since Star Wars hasn't gone into hyper drive against a trek ship then it doesn't pass go here either.
Borg can time travel. Trek can transport. That's faster than light speed travel. All superior to let's invade Stormtroopers. How did they look against those ewoks ? Not so good. Shameful. I mean if you aren't going to roll over a primitive people despite your "tech" then please GTFO because that did happen in a film.
😂
Since you haven't learned to structure your posts and the labyrinth of your nonsense is getting too annoying for me, let me just shot you down in a more structured way.
Star Trek beams stuff / people / red matter anywhere
Contrary to your belief, it is not my mind that is limited but the technology in Star Trek. They are incapable of beaming anything through shielding. Fact. Thus potential targets for any kind of beaming attempts are already rather limited as all Star Wars planets, ships and space-stations do have shields.
So you assume that they will just beam stuff across the Galaxy to places "close to" potential targets. There are several fundamental problems with it:
1)
We don't know anything about the limitations of the technology, except for the fact that they - apparently - can't just beam Red Matter to a certain point in space, because otherwise, they would have done this to stop the supernova in the first place (they had the technology there thanks to Scotty). As they didn't, they apparently couldn't, which is not much of a surprise, given the various things that could go wrong while sending information to reconstruct a human being through space.
Then, even Khan being beamed to Kronos did take time. He disappears and needs about two minutes before he reappears on Kronos (having changed his body position during that transmission period). So a two minute travel for 90 lightyears. That is pretty impressive in terms of speed, but the Millenium Falcon could cross that distance even faster (at a speed of 2 lightyears / second, they would just need 45 seconds time to do that travel). Which is, by the way, a good explanation why none of them has thought off developing transportation technology in the Star Trek sense.
2)
And here is the far bigger problem. In order to transport stuff, you need a destination. Problem: Star Trek doesn't have any real long-range scanners. The USS Enterprise long-range scanners had a maximum range of one parsec (3.26 lightyears) when you're dealing with an entire Galaxy here. This means they are, essentially, blind for much going on around them, while Star Wars ships could move into / out of their scanning range in seconds. This means: They won't see where they should beam anything to. They wouldn't be capable of locating the Death Stars or Starkiller Base, much less fleets or anything "mobile" before it hits hem.
3)
Even ignoring that problems there is still the fact that even beaming takes time between dematerialization an rematerialization. From the 2 Minutes that it takes Khan to get to Kronos, transportation over galactic distances (up to 1000 times greater) would still take hours or even more than a day to get to somewhere. It's highly doubtable that this is even possible, but even if it is, they would pretty much need to pray that nothing moves to their spot of rematerilization or that fleets / bases just don't disappear in the meantime.
4)
And beaming red matter is out of question anyway. Red matter instantly reacts with all kinds of matter, so it needs to be stored in a perfect vacuum (as seen in the movie). That vacuum would be destroyed upon dematerialization of the container the red matter is kept in, thus leading to a reaction of the red matter in the middle of the beaming process. Which is, probably, the answer why they didn't do it in the first place.
Notice: This is even being generous here. Since we don't know how beaming works exactly (transporting just information or matter too), it's even debateable if they could beam something into space or need matter to be there in order for rematerialization. Furthermore the jamming technology applied by Star Wars forces on a constant basis (see Battle of Endor for example) could potentially disrupt the entire beaming process. So "transportation" is pretty much a non-issue for this debate.
The superior firepower / shielding of Star Wars
This is so obvious, that I really find it laughable that I have to spell it out. First off: You're heavily exaggerating the power of handheld weaponary in the Star Trek universe. Khan's boolean gun is the extremely upper limit of that technology and not even designed as a handheld weapon in the first place (it's just that Khan with his augmented strength can handle it as such). And notice that it doesn't "destroy" the Klingon ships. Khan merely kill the pilots with his aim.
For the firepower of Star Wars handheld weapons, you don't have to look no farther than to "A new Hope". Han Solo blows rather big chunks of the walls off in his shootout with Stormtroopers before the Falcon escapes Tatooine and leaves the headhunter Greedo as a charred husk after firing at him (probably not on the highest energy setting). What Stormtroopers can do is apparent from what happens with Luke's aunt and uncle. Luke finds them as charred skeletons when returning from his meeting with Ben / Obi-Wan.
Then you want to get bigger: The AT-ATs mean weapons at full power fired at the Rebel shield generator from a distance of 17.28 kilometers completely destroy the building, which is roughly one kilometer in width, judging from the distance given in the movie. The light turbolasers on Stardestroyers, which are the only weapons we see them firing in the movies casually vaporize asteroids the size of the millenium Falcon or even bigger during the pursuit scenes in "The Empire Strikes Back". Those are already guns that have more firepower than your usual Star Trek phaser arrays, which in turn a rather devastating for Trek ships.
But the large turbolasers on Stardestroyers are by far bigger than what is mounted on the AT-AT or the light turbolasers they fire on the Millenium Falcon. Just for scale comparison, here is a picture of Obi-Wan an Anakin flying past a Venator class (the direct forerunner of the Star Destroyers) with one of the gun marked:
Close up:
Those are the size of a small house with gun barrels the width of those starfighter cockpits (~1.5 meters). When the comparable small weapons mounted on the AT-AT can already blow buildings the size of the shield generator up, what would weapons that are several dozen times as big do? The answer can be found in "Revenge of the Sith" where one of that weapons is fired on an enemy ship. The result looks like that:
This is a 1.2 kilometre long ship that is hit, making the explosion roughly 300 meters in diameter, meaning that a single shot from a Venator-class destroyer is potent enough to blow up a portion of a ship, with that part being roughly the size of the entire Enterprise. That is why Star Trek ships wouldn't survive a volley of Star Wars destroyers firing at them.
You can also put it that way: They have the energy generators required to get those rather giant ships into hyperspace (and move even their space stations on that kind of speed). The power output must be mindblowing on its own. And now imagine they divert that kind of energy into their weapons.
Notice: The ships in the Star Wars universe (even the Falcon) have shields that are at least capable of blocking the "lighter" weapons for a period of time. In case of the larger ship, they are specifically build to also tank the heavier weapons (with planetary shielding being even more powerful). And this is why Star Trek won't manage to get through their shields anytime fast – if they can do it at all...
Using Red Matter as Weapon
While I have already demonstrated why beaming it anywhere won't work above, you seem to rely on this tactic so much, that it warrants another commentary. Here we see the stuff in action:
While Spock does use it to absorb a small part of the supernova's energy (the supernova was obviously expanding already and much of it would have expanded in other directions), the problem here is that there needs to be a reaction with matter in order to trigger the reaction of the red matter. The problem is: How should that happen when simply "throwing" it on Star Wars ships or space stations? Those things have shields that block matter from passing through. So the red matter would just harmlessly float around in space (a vacuum) doing nothing. So technically, they would need to beam vacuum cylinders packed with explosives close to Star Wars vessels or utilize kamikaze ships to ram them and trigger the reaction themselves.
But then, three of the aformentioned problems apply: They can't beam red matter, they can travel fast enough to "catch" Star Wars ships and they won't even know where to travel to, making this tactic mood.
On a sidenote: The "Incredible Cross-Section" Book for "Attack of the Clones" mentions that repulsorlift technology (which is common in every Star Wars vehicle) uses "knots" of space-time that are mined from black holes. Just to give you an idea how threatening a black hole really is in terms of the Star Wars universe. It's just another resource.
But Star Trek has time-travel technology
Yeah. They do. And, don’t get me wrong, but while it is impressive, it is also rather useless in terms of this discussion. You see: Much like beaming technology, you need a destination to use time-travel. The Star Wars universe, even going by movie canon, had a Galaxy spanning government (the Republic) for 1,000 generations (that is 25,000 years). Before that, going by the Expanded Universe, there was the Infinite Empire (40,000 years in the past) already controlling a significant part of the Galaxy. So even if they go back that far, they would still be confronted by space-explorers with technology above their own.
And then, the limitations of their technology present would still apply completely. They would still need years to navigate their fleets through the Galaxy. They would still not know where to go or what to do. They would still be outmatched in terms of firepower by many of the civilizations they could possibly encounter. I mean, seriously: There are millions of inhibited star-systems in the Star Wars Galaxy. So even the process of finding and conquering those would take, literally, more than a thousand years for them.
And then, there is always the question what their actions would change. Altering the time is unpredictable in terms of results. So this isn’t any kind of “reliable” technology to use.
Development and technological peaks
I really don’t get what you even attempt to argue under this point. You talk about technological progress in certain field and virtually ignore it for the Star Wars side. And this is extremely laughable if we consider the following facts: Over the several hundred year of Star Trek canon, they are still using virtually the same handheld weapons (phasers), do still utilize pretty much the same ship design (just, in the new timeline, building one bigger, which is, ironically, exactly the thing that you’re accusing Star Wars of). Much of their everyday technology didn’t alter, starting from beaming to shielding, to weapons, to engines, to whatnot. They don’t develop as much as introduce other species with a different kind of development (e.g. Borg).
What you keep missing, though, is the simple fact that the status quo in term of technology in the Star Wars universe beats the living crap out of anything Star Trek has, with the technologies that they don’t have compared to Star Trek, are – simply put – mood. They can travel faster through the Galaxy with their giant freaking space stations, than the Star Trek faction can beam single people. Those space stations themselves are demonstration of technology in terms of construction, industrial capacity and energy generation that puts everything the Star Trek universe has to offer to absolute shame. Just, for a brief moment, think about the power that is required to move those things into hyperspace or actually blow a planet up.
And based on that kind of energy generation (which is, de facto, utilizing artificial stars in the Star Destroyers and fuel mined out of hyperspace for the Death Star) is the main advantage Star Wars has that Star Trek could never hope of coping with. Even following your ridiculous ideas of red matter being beamed into space to destroy Starkiller Base or the Death Stars, Star Wars would still win. Once again: They are powering their ships with artificial stars. They will just laugh at Star Wars technology. Those small ships from the new Trek movie getting through their shields? Pff. Watch and learn:
0:38 – TIE-Interceptor flies into one of the trusters of the Mon Calamari cruiser. Not a scratch.
1:00 – burning Star Fighter collides with Star Destroyer hull. No visible damage.
1:03 – burning TIE-fighter hits Star Destroyer bridge tower. Doesn’t even leave a scratch.
1:09 – another burning Star Fighter collides with the Star Destroyer. No visible damage done.
I could also just point to “The Empire Strikes Back”: They fly those huge ships through a freaking asteroid field for days under a constant hail of smaller and larger stones on their shielding. Yet, they just lose one of those ships – after the aforementioned days. So those small ships from the new movie would look pretty well, exploding against shields, which is basically all they are good for. Nice firework, I suppose.
And there is a lot of everyday technology, that you have happily chosen to ignore:
[list]
[*]On Tatooine, they do actually “farm” moisture out of the desert air via vaporators. That is what Luke’s Uncle does for a living.
[*]They have real-time video-communication on a Galactic scale, as seen when Vader (being about 50,000 lightyears away from the Galactic Core has a video chat with Palpatine, who is at the Galactic core at that point in time. In the same way, they have the galaxies most skilled bounty hunters appear on the Executor within days.
[*]Cloud City in “The Empire Strikes Back” is located in the upper atmosphere of a Gas Giant. Notice: Even at the top of the clouds, the Gravity would be 2.5 times as high as that on earth and they would have to artificially create habitable atmosphere on the outside. Which means they have to equal out gravity and pressure and have to generate breathable air, while mining the gas out of the gas giant.
[*]they are capable of treating injuries with bacta, healing them within hours. Even the replacement of limbs with artificial counterparts that act completely natural can be done within hours after the injury was suffered.
[*]repulsor technology serves as anti-gravitation technology for vehicles and turbolifts that is widely spread throughout the Galaxy, even available to rather poor people (see Rey in "The Force Awakens"😉. The reduction of friction easily allows speeds close to or above Mace 1 for many ("ground"😉 vehicles.
[*]Cloning technology in combination with growth acceleration enables them to create entire armies from scratch in the matter of some years.
[*]Their industrial capacities are such that they can build 3/4 of a Death Star with a 960 km radius in three years. A large part of the Imperial Fleet (read: At least 25,000 Star Destroyers) was assembled in under 20 years (+ the Death Star).
[*]and speaking about building: Coruscant has buildings that have more than 5,000 levels, ranging from the Core of the planet to the "surface" we mostly see in the films. This is also pretty evident from the fact, that after catching a falling Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Attack of the Clones", Anakin drops down into the depths of the city in free-fall fashion. This implies building materials that are vastly superior to our present or those of 23rd/24th century earth in Star Trek.
[*]they also have the transport capacities to ship water, food and other stuff in for the one trillion inhabitants of Coruscant.
[/list]
”But Trek has the better combat speed!111”
Really, Quanchimon.
I know that Trek can engage in battles while traveling faster than light. The point is: They can only do so against targets with a similar speed. Which is only logical, because trying to fire on anything near stationary at FTL speed, will result in you being in the next star-system in the split second it would even take to try and fire on your target. I’ve posted a video of their actual combat speed, which looks pretty lame compared to some Star Wars ships, especially Star Fighters. Going by the Death Star trench scenes in “A new hope” (looking at their target computers), they are flying at an attack-speed of roughly 3 kilometers per second – which translates into 10,800 km/h. And with that speed, they attempt (and manage) to hit a relatively stationary target with a 2 meter diameter. And we know, from them actually getting there, flying around a gas giant, that they can fly far faster than that on sublight speed. In fact, you may once again think about the fact that the Millenium Falcon makes it to another star-system in a brief amount of time in “The Empire Strikes Back” when its hyperdrive was out of function.
Actually Nai, that picture you posted, the weapon used seemed to be used from one of those Self Propelled Heavy Artillery walkers, given it is shot from the hanger from what it looks like.
https://youtu.be/hlecG3nYaLw?t=60
Even still though, the Turbolasers were causing some pretty large explosions on impact.
Oh and don't forget, the E-11 blaster in the movies, caused some pretty big explosions, blasting through metal with ease and sent full grown men dropping after one shot or reeling back after getting hit.
Well, I do not structure my posts unless I'm in a battlezone and am purposely being vague because I do not want to hash out my entire argument before the battlezone takes place. You were given the chance to accept this glorious chance but instead hid behind your insecurities and flames to cover up the blatantly obvious; you are scared.
I never once stated they'd beam anything through shielding. So do not attempt to misrepresent my argument just B amuse you're getting exposed. Shields can be destroyed and let's face it space battle stations, space ships, and planets can be invaded.
1). If you want to claim there are limitations the onus is on you to prove it. I never once stated they would transport the red matter itself into space itself. The fault in your argument is simple. Spock needed a fast ship and a pilot to target the red matter. We see tn red matter clearly took out the super nova but not in time to save Romulus. We have seen Trek transport people in a free fall so I think it's pretty beneficial and the target doesn't even have to be stationary for it to work.
We don't know if two minutes literally takes place before Khan appears. Movies don't always follow along in real time especially due to a cut scene. That's when the clip was placed in that doesn't mean it was literally two minutes later. The MF can travel at light speed just as other ships can but what does that have to do with combat speed. They can't conduct battle at that speed as it would be ridiculous nor would they avoid engaging Trek ships. Hell, Wars ships themselves don't seem that good at following another ship if it gets into light speed first. Once they hit it they are pretty much gone. They don't have this advantage of zooming in and attacking before a counter offensive can be done in battle either. This has been another disingenuous pro Star Wars argument which avoids portrayal in its own films. Films don't need to follow a logical sense you clod. You're trying to somehow make sense of a fictional universe which doesn't need to logically work. It doesn't and any attempt to rationalize is truly an exercise in futility.
2). They'd have to patrol the areas of space just as Star Wars would. It's the same for both. None would have some auto map explaining what lies anywhere until they traveled and created the data and spread it. The areas they would have explored and their home bases, ships, space stations would be fair game to beam someone to and from. Once they would engage the enemy transporting would be a viable option. The Death Stars have to move in range to fire anyways. Starkiller wouldn't have the coordinates to fire until they scouted the areas themselves and pinpointed the targets.
3.). Two minutes in film doesn't mean that literally took place for Khan. That's faulty reasoning. We have seen this take place in every film where the films movie doesn't translate to literal real time. Based on your ridiculous logic a Star Wars film takes place within the running time. You're basing this off a faulty reasoning which comes apart when you apply it to any film. We see fights in any movie pan away and then pan back to the fights but that doesn't mean we know the time which took place until we see the fight again.
4.) Red matter would be stored in the perfect vacuum until they needed to use it. We can see it doesn't react when Spock extracts it until it hits the super nova. We see characters transported and nothing is destroyed in the process so why would red matter which doesn't just black hole until it comes into contact with something such as the super nova, Vulcan, or the Narada. Another baseless claim illogical because you're afraid of the application of the red matter which you should be.
Notice: when has Star Wars blocked transporting ? Another baseless claim where you make things up and try to pretend hey maybe this wouldn't work because they can jam things. I agree that Trek can't transport past the shielding but you have no evidence to support they can block Trek's transporting working outside the shields. My claims are they transport from ship to ship or destination to destination unsheilded which they do in the films.
Inferior firepower and shielding of Star Wars
It maybe be obvious to someone who has totally convinced himself of Star Wars delusions of superiority over a fictional universe I had to limit just to make it fair. If we went all series canon it'd be annihilation either by the Q or by the millions of Borg Cubes alone.
So you want to ignore the power of the weapon or the other alien races which have superior strength to human beings anyways. It doesn't completely disintegrate the ships but it lacks enough power to down them with a single shot. If you believe he hits the pilots please feel free to point it out with evidence. that isn't how claims work. You need to back that the gun can only take down ships if it hits the pilot.
Han Solo's guns have hit armored troopers. They don't blow up. There are holes in them just as there are with the phasers. You exaggerate and really try to sell fancy explosions when they happen in Star Wars. We have seen blasters hit Luke and even the superior crossbolt hit Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren just had a robe on as well and the crossbolt was portrayed as a lot more powerful than Han's blaster. You ignore the vast majority of the showings the clear comparison to something that can't leave armored foes in stumps like the Boolean Gun can and has. You're a dishonest debater whose bias nauseates me. Your insecurity reveals to me you were probably bullied as a child.
Again you want to judge with numbers you can't prove. That is fine as the At At's are not what the Stormtroopers wield and they are slow moving and can't fly. They would be at a severe disadvantage against an aerial assault Trek can rain down on them. Bringing a tank to a fight against an F15 isn't a wise thing to do aside from the fact it's movement is limited unlike a ship. The Borg would also adapt to the At At's alone. The ground forces of Wars are much more delved into than Trek's but spaceships will always have the advantage over ground forces.
Ok, I see the two images but size doesn't necessarily correlate to greater power. Most saying it isn't more powerful than the At At's but to what degree.
Nerd numbers. Ok something relevant as an example of the destruction of the blasts. Ok but how do we know these ships are shielded ? The difference in Wars and Trek is pretty obviously in Trek's favor when comparing how these ships look in comparison in attacking a shielded ship. Trek ships wreck shop when they unload on a fully shielded ship unlike Wars ships which don't even take out the crappy MF.
Notice: The point is their weapons don't damage shields that well and something as inferior as the MF can withstand imperial class weapons which have far more powerful weaponry. Trek ships really damage ships and quite instantly when shielded but wars ships do not. We see vastly superior wars ships fail to damage vastly inferior Wars ships such as the MF.
Do you actually have any specific, articulated arguments against the calculations and logistical disparities we've gone over, or are you just going to dismiss them with the catchphrase "common sense" over and over again?
Originally posted by quanchi112
Common sense and portrayals which matters more than unproven maths based on feats IMO.
So rigorous analysis can be dismissed on face without any justification, but quanchi's common sense must be taken by everyone as true?
You think the more academic rigor is applied, the less credible it should be taken?
How intellectually honest of you. 🙄
It's for dramatic effect and applying real world logic to a universe with fantasy elements is an exercise in futility.
So then what logic are you trying to apply to it? Your special brand of Hollywood logic? What is this logical system's rules, where did you get it from, how do you justify it?
Literally your entire case has boiled down to dismissing arguments you don't like by vaguely casting them as "nerd math" that runs against "common sense", without actually elaborating or explaining WHAT is wrong with any of it. It's either immensely stupid or grossly dishonest - I'm not sure which you're going for here. My guess is just that you don't understand any of it, and so just stick your fingers in your ears and scream that they don't work because they aren't simplistic enough for your "common sense" to refute it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Well, I do not structure my posts unless I'm in a battlezone and am purposely being vague because I do not want to hash out my entire argument before the battlezone takes place. You were given the chance to accept this glorious chance but instead hid behind your insecurities and flames to cover up the blatantly obvious; you are scared.
Translation: "I'm shit on purpose, so that I can keep some greater pile of bullshit back to lose the next debate with flying colors, but that one with judges, that I will cry about when they proclaim my defeat."
I never once stated they'd beam anything through shielding. So do not attempt to misrepresent my argument just B amuse you're getting exposed. Shields can be destroyed and let's face it space battle stations, space ships, and planets can be invaded.
Translation: "Yeah. I will, contrary to proof presented to me just keep assuming that they will somehow destroy shielding powered by artificial stars or an energy source even greater than a star."
1). If you want to claim there are limitations the onus is on you to prove it. I never once stated they would transport the red matter itself into space itself. The fault in your argument is simple. Spock needed a fast ship and a pilot to target the red matter. We see tn red matter clearly took out the super nova but not in time to save Romulus. We have seen Trek transport people in a free fall so I think it's pretty beneficial and the target doesn't even have to be stationary for it to work.
I did just prove it. They need a destination for any form of beaming. They can't aquire a target across vast distances of space. Thus they will be unable to beam. It's a fairly easy concept.
We don't know if two minutes literally takes place before Khan appears. Movies don't always follow along in real time especially due to a cut scene. That's when the clip was placed in that doesn't mean it was literally two minutes later.
It probably took longer, since Warp caps at 9000c and Transwarp at a maximum of 180,000c. It can't have been much shorter, because the signal with the information for rematerliazation has to travel somehow.
The MF can travel at light speed just as other ships can but what does that have to do with combat speed.
Wrong. The MF can travel with 60,000,000 times the speed of light.
They can't conduct battle at that speed as it would be ridiculous nor would they avoid engaging Trek ships. Hell, Wars ships themselves don't seem that good at following another ship if it gets into light speed first. Once they hit it they are pretty much gone. They don't have this advantage of zooming in and attacking before a counter offensive can be done in battle either. This has been another disingenuous pro Star Wars argument which avoids portrayal in its own films. Films don't need to follow a logical sense you clod. You're trying to somehow make sense of a fictional universe which doesn't need to logically work. It doesn't and any attempt to rationalize is truly an exercise in futility.
This is, essentially, you saying: "Hey. I don't have an argument, but: No. And, well, don't use logic here." Ridiculous.
Star Wars ships don't need to engage in combat at that speeds. They just can "jump" to any destination they desire, far faster than anything in Star Trek could follow. Do you get this concept now. So, Star Wars could "jump" to a planet, destroy it, "jump" away. Or do the same to enemy fleets. Star Trek would be entirely helpless, because they lack the speed to react. That's a fact.
2). They'd have to patrol the areas of space just as Star Wars would. It's the same for both. None would have some auto map explaining what lies anywhere until they traveled and created the data and spread it. The areas they would have explored and their home bases, ships, space stations would be fair game to beam someone to and from. Once they would engage the enemy transporting would be a viable option. The Death Stars have to move in range to fire anyways. Starkiller wouldn't have the coordinates to fire until they scouted the areas themselves and pinpointed the targets.
And again, you're missing the crucial points. Star Wars could explore the Galaxy with starfighters, since those are perfectly capable of entering hyperspace and travel on their own, apparently, across the entire Galaxy (see Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back"😉. Thus, they could explore far faster and with far fewer man than Trek could do. And once everything is mapped out, it will be a slaughter.
3.). Two minutes in film doesn't mean that literally took place for Khan. That's faulty reasoning. We have seen this take place in every film where the films movie doesn't translate to literal real time. Based on your ridiculous logic a Star Wars film takes place within the running time. You're basing this off a faulty reasoning which comes apart when you apply it to any film. We see fights in any movie pan away and then pan back to the fights but that doesn't mean we know the time which took place until we see the fight again.
Once more: You don't have any kind of argument to counter my points, yet, you just accuse me of faulty reasoning. The signal containing the information to beam Khan to Kronos must have traveled there somehow. I was being extremely generous here, provided that it could have taken much longer. And since you want to use that techology, have fun providing proof for that, without using my "faulty reasoning".
4.) Red matter would be stored in the perfect vacuum until they needed to use it. We can see it doesn't react when Spock extracts it until it hits the super nova. We see characters transported and nothing is destroyed in the process so why would red matter which doesn't just black hole until it comes into contact with something such as the super nova, Vulcan, or the Narada. Another baseless claim illogical because you're afraid of the application of the red matter which you should be.
I'm laughing my ass off.
Transportation desintegrates the personal / items to be transported and reassembles them at the destination. Desintegrating a container with a vacuum would destroy the vacuum, which would lead to a reaction. Furthermore, since we don't know exactly how beaming works (is just information transported or also matter), it would probably be impossible to beam any kind of exotic matter anyway. If they could do it, they would have done it to save Romolus. You failed to counter that argument entirely.
Notice: when has Star Wars blocked transporting ? Another baseless claim where you make things up and try to pretend hey maybe this wouldn't work because they can jam things. I agree that Trek can't transport past the shielding but you have no evidence to support they can block Trek's transporting working outside the shields. My claims are they transport from ship to ship or destination to destination unsheilded which they do in the films.
Jammers do block any kind of scanning (see "Return of the Jedi", where jamming blocks their ability to see if the shield is still active). They need scanning in order to acquire a destination for their transportation. So if they are being jammed, they can't transport. Easy math.
Inferior firepower and shielding of Star WarsIt maybe be obvious to someone who has totally convinced himself of Star Wars delusions of superiority over a fictional universe I had to limit just to make it fair. If we went all series canon it'd be annihilation either by the Q or by the millions of Borg Cubes alone.
If we went "all series canon" the Force would crush all living things in the Star Trek universe. It has a will, it transcends the universe. Star Trek is royally screwed.
So you want to ignore the power of the weapon or the other alien races which have superior strength to human beings anyways. It doesn't completely disintegrate the ships but it lacks enough power to down them with a single shot. If you believe he hits the pilots please feel free to point it out with evidence. that isn't how claims work. You need to back that the gun can only take down ships if it hits the pilot.
Aside from commiting a logical fallacy by asking that I should prove what those weapon can't do:
1:16 - fires into cockpit, kills pilot
2:28 - hits cockpit and mid section, killing the pilot
Boring. Not that downing apparently unshielded crafts has anything to do with this debate...
Han Solo's guns have hit armored troopers. They don't blow up. There are holes in them just as there are with the phasers. You exaggerate and really try to sell fancy explosions when they happen in Star Wars. We have seen blasters hit Luke and even the superior crossbolt hit Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren just had a robe on as well and the crossbolt was portrayed as a lot more powerful than Han's blaster. You ignore the vast majority of the showings the clear comparison to something that can't leave armored foes in stumps like the Boolean Gun can and has. You're a dishonest debater whose bias nauseates me. Your insecurity reveals to me you were probably bullied as a child.
Pardon me?
Have you, by chance, missed the charred skeletons of Luke's aunt and uncle having been killed by blasterfire, apparently incinerated to their bones? Have you missed poor Greedo being turned into smoking remains by Han firing at him? Have you somehow missed that Han's blaster blows rather huge chunks out of a wall and vaporizes metal, much like all other weapons in the film? With every hit on armored combatants being an instakill? And, yeah, Kylo Ren somehow survives, which isn't even constant with the portrayal of the weapon within that scene, much less that movie. One can just imagine that, being a Force user, he can simple tank more damage or maybe he used the Force to partitially protect himself. Who know. Hardly a basis to discount blasters, which are depicted as being rather powerful on every instance they are fired, exception being hit protagonists.
Again you want to judge with numbers you can't prove. That is fine as the At At's are not what the Stormtroopers wield and they are slow moving and can't fly. They would be at a severe disadvantage against an aerial assault Trek can rain down on them. Bringing a tank to a fight against an F15 isn't a wise thing to do aside from the fact it's movement is limited unlike a ship. The Borg would also adapt to the At At's alone. The ground forces of Wars are much more delved into than Trek's but spaceships will always have the advantage over ground forces.
It's getting more stupid with every part of your posting.
I don't give a damn about AT-ATs. I was just talking about their firepower to point you to the fact that the guns mounted on the ships are larger and would have even more firepower. Thanks for ignoring this entirely, you "honest debator" (roflmao).
Ok, I see the two images but size doesn't necessarily correlate to greater power. Most saying it isn't more powerful than the At At's but to what degree.
Yeah. Right. Same technology being used, but just with guns a dozen or even a hundred times bigger is not going to influence firepower despite the fact that we see it onscreen. Just go home, Quanchitroll.
Nerd numbers. Ok something relevant as an example of the destruction of the blasts. Ok but how do we know these ships are shielded ? The difference in Wars and Trek is pretty obviously in Trek's favor when comparing how these ships look in comparison in attacking a shielded ship. Trek ships wreck shop when they unload on a fully shielded ship unlike Wars ships which don't even take out the crappy MF.
Yeah. How do we know that ships are shielding in a universe were all ships are shielded? It's getting even dumber now. You're just grasping for straws now in your incompetence to form arguments. SW ships are shielded in general. Fact. And you're still not getting the fact, that nobody every tried to destroy the Millenium Falcon, which is rather ridiculous by now.
Notice: The point is their weapons don't damage shields that well and something as inferior as the MF can withstand imperial class weapons which have far more powerful weaponry. Trek ships really damage ships and quite instantly when shielded but wars ships do not. We see vastly superior wars ships fail to damage vastly inferior Wars ships such as the MF.
Again: Totally missing the point. Star Wars ships have a strength matching Star Wars weapons. So, of course, the Millenium Falcon can tank some light turbolaser fire. And with "some" I really mean: a little bit of it.
Star Destroyer starts firing at the Falcon at 2:55, second volley is fired at 3:05 next at 3:12 and at 3:16 the alarms goes off that they are losing a deflector shield. So the Star Destroyer, firing precisely two of his light turbolasers at the Falcon, drains the shields with three volleys in about 20 seconds.
And, in case you don't remember:
At 1:39 the ship is hit by an asteroid. At 2:30 there is another impact. At 2:34, you can see that the smaller asteroids have enough energy to instantly vaporize the larger ones when hitting them. At 2:36 they are hits by a rain of asteroids. At 2:53 there are two impacts agains the shields. The Star Destoyer were dealing with that kind of stuff for days, if they weren't busy vaporizing parts of the asteroid field...
...from 0:37 on, you can see that they use the same guns to vaporize asteroids the size of the Millenium Falcon. This uses power far beyond anything that ST weapons have to offer.
Until you post something that makes sense from now on, you can consider this debate done. I won't repeat myself any longer, just because of your ferrous cranus.
Originally posted by The EllimistRigorous analysis which isn't proven by the film. A film fact is the distance stated in the film not someone trying to prove the distance based off their own analysis which can't be verified by the film.
Do you actually have any specific, articulated arguments against the calculations and logistical disparities we've gone over, or are you just going to dismiss them with the catchphrase "common sense" over and over again?So rigorous analysis can be dismissed on face without any justification, but quanchi's common sense must be taken by everyone as true?
You think the more academic rigor is applied, the less credible it should be taken?
How intellectually honest of you. 🙄
So then what logic are you trying to apply to it? Your special brand of Hollywood logic? What is this logical system's rules, where did you get it from, how do you justify it?
Literally your entire case has boiled down to dismissing arguments you don't like by vaguely casting them as "nerd math" that runs against "common sense", [b]without actually elaborating or explaining WHAT is wrong with any of it.
It's either immensely stupid or grossly dishonest - I'm not sure which you're going for here. My guess is just that you don't understand any of it, and so just stick your fingers in your ears and scream that they don't work because they aren't simplistic enough for your "common sense" to refute it. [/B]
I didn't say my common sense is a fact I simply gave you my perspective. I place a higher value on portrayals than feats anyways. Take Han Solos blasters and those early new hope explosions and then compare the same blasters hitting Star Wars characters. It doesn't add up because it doesn't have to. They use explosions for dramatic effect but it doesn't logically add up when it hits a fleshy person. The body should be torn into and through like tissue paper based off the logical application of the explosion feat in a New Hope. I will post clips to back my claims in our battlezone and go into further detail to back every claim but I'm not doing a mini battlezone here intentionally. The point of this thread was not to compare the intergalactic weapons and fleets in a battle anyways.
I have given examples of how it doesn't add up with examples and why my perspective is a certain way but you simply don't want to pay attention. My guess is your bias is playing a part in this and you somehow always justify Star Wars as superior no matter how many justifications you have to pull to convince yourself.
I saw the same hypocrisies with the Zelda fans. Nerd math flying in the face of the consistent portrayal. Han's blasters don't cause massive explosions consistently so trying to use that one scene in order to paint his weapons in a favorable light is disingenuous and flies in the face of the weapons consistent damage when hitting less durable characters.
I mean the mental gymnastics one has to jump through to argue for a universe still using the same cross casters sixty years later are still more powerful than the First Order's Stormtroopers weaponry is quite frankly absurd.
So you admit it reacts with energy but somehow it doesn't react to energy fields aka their deflector shields. It would react to the shields and create a black hole I close proximity to the ship. Very close proximity. There is nothing to suggest they can't beam red matter. I already went over the circumstances of the situation with you. The red matter was on Spock's ship and he reacted accordingly. He was late but still took out the super nova and was transported back into the worm hole in which the Narada took Spock and the red matter prisoner.
So you believe the Star Wars ships simply fly away at the speed of light s d avoid a fight at all costs. So the empire and the rebels are cowards according to you. Shameful. Star Wars.. I guess not.
What does that have to do with an artificial black hole being created in close proximity of their ships ? I guess ewoks threaten them and their technology but black holes are just like throwing water at them. A minor inconvenience.
Just to be clear this isn't a let's compare tech in a war time setting but just heir tech in general. Your small penis insisted on this so I will degrade you since you're into masochism. The manner in which the Borg used a crushing defeat into using time travel to escape the destruction of their Borg Cube was impressive. Star Wars wouldn't expect or have any knowledge about an enemy such as the Borg who can adapt and add the cultures of Star Wars to their own. It's an advantage so calm down and quit getting in an uproar.
And here's when your bias shows its ugly head. Any civilization get the **** out of here. We have primitive goddamn midgets taking out Stormtroopers with training and tech that makes their sticks and booby traps look very formidable when these two forces met. They do not have to destroy every Star Wars character to conquer or be the super power. This is films on,y and if we include the series then it's Q and game over. Just stop. Trek is just more powerful even despite ignoring canon beings just to give Wars a chance.
Technological peaks
Trek built a bigger and faster ship to the tune of three times. It can also be manned by one lone character. This is the kind of progression in a very short period of time after Khan got involved. That isn't like 40 or 60 years later when the goddamn wookiees are still using cross casters. What's even more humiliating is its more powerful than the first orders Stormtroopers standard gear. We see Khan using a Boolean gun and phaser rifles which are vast improvements to the standard phaser. 3 times the speed and handheld weaponry which is dramatic improvement over your typical phaser both in terms of power output and successive blasts.
Completely false. I have a specific example but I don't want to post that now. Your whole point is unsupported and isn't portrayed as such. No, it just shows what manpower and time is needed for these giant space targets. To create something so destructive they need a huge manpower and something that takes a considerable amount of time while Trek has something small that creates black holes. Trek doesn't need years and tons of manpower to use red matter so the advantage is overwhelmingly in favor of Star Trek.
So who cares what they are powering their ships with ? Their ships aren't as durable as a star and can be dealt with at point blank range. Trek has thousands of ships. How many Star Wars ships do they have in the films ?
The technology of this film isn't good enough to show visible damage at the time. Again we saw the MF tank multiple blasts from a much more powerful ship without any significant damage because their firepower isn't that impressive with the shields up.
1. Who cares ?
2. Who cares ? Both points have no relevance in this new mini space battle. They can make long Skype calls. Big whoop.
3. Ok and Trek can assimilate entire cultures and transport into beings from one location to the next. That's more impressive.
4. Best imperial technology couldn't heal Vader's wounds. Poor guy.
5. Not as impressive as time travel.
6. In Trek they created the Augments who are physical specimens and their cellular regeneration could cure diseases in moments. Advantage: Trek.
7. They have the manpower so it isn't impressive and its timely.
8. And we see multiple levels in a simple mining vessel from Trek which dwarfed the Enterprise.
9. Trek could transport them in no time.
Combat speed
Not when compared to the new Star Trek beyond ship speed. We also have the USS vengeance 3xwarp speed. Yes, they did so despite only having thirty plus ships showing how weak and susceptible the destroyed star is to small ships attacking it.
Originally posted by NaiNo, I am not turning this thread into a battlezone which is off topic you German boob. Well you backed down from the challenge so even if I do lose you were too chicken shit to accept yourself. You aren't a man.
Translation: "I'm shit on purpose, so that I can keep some greater pile of bullshit back to lose the next debate with flying colors, but that one with judges, that I will cry about when they proclaim my defeat."Translation: "Yeah. I will, contrary to proof presented to me just keep assuming that they will somehow destroy shielding powered by artificial stars or an energy source even greater than a star."
I did just prove it. They need a destination for any form of beaming. They can't aquire a target across vast distances of space. Thus they will be unable to beam. It's a fairly easy concept.
It probably took longer, since Warp caps at 9000c and Transwarp at a maximum of 180,000c. It can't have been much shorter, because the signal with the information for rematerliazation has to travel somehow.
Wrong. The MF can travel with 60,000,000 times the speed of light.
This is, essentially, you saying: "Hey. I don't have an argument, but: No. And, well, don't use logic here." Ridiculous.
Star Wars ships don't need to engage in combat at that speeds. They just can "jump" to any destination they desire, far faster than anything in Star Trek could follow. Do you get this concept now. So, Star Wars could "jump" to a planet, destroy it, "jump" away. Or do the same to enemy fleets. Star Trek would be entirely helpless, because they lack the speed to react. That's a fact.And again, you're missing the crucial points. Star Wars could explore the Galaxy with starfighters, since those are perfectly capable of entering hyperspace and travel on their own, apparently, across the entire Galaxy (see Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back"😉. Thus, they could explore far faster and with far fewer man than Trek could do. And once everything is mapped out, it will be a slaughter.
Once more: You don't have any kind of argument to counter my points, yet, you just accuse me of faulty reasoning. The signal containing the information to beam Khan to Kronos must have traveled there somehow. I was being extremely generous here, provided that it could have taken much longer. And since you want to use that techology, have fun providing proof for that, without using my "faulty reasoning".
I'm laughing my ass off.
Transportation desintegrates the personal / items to be transported and reassembles them at the destination. Desintegrating a container with a vacuum would destroy the vacuum, which would lead to a reaction. Furthermore, since we don't know exactly how beaming works (is just information transported or also matter), it would probably be impossible to beam any kind of exotic matter anyway. If they could do it, they would have done it to save Romolus. You failed to counter that argument entirely.
So artificial stars which power shielding but in no way, shape, or form is comparable to a real star somehow becomes your argument but you'll ignore the black hole which literally Trek can use at its content. Trek ships tear through shielding pretty quickly and take large chunks out while superior wars ships can't even cripple the MF with multiple hits. That's called evidence not hyperbolic debating which seems to be the norm with you.
I never once said they didn't need a destination to beam to. You again are misrepresenting my argument. Once they map the given space they could indeed gas port to various targets. This is about Intel as well for both sides they won't magically just know the locations of everyone and everything they are after just because. Be realistic and consistent for both sides.
So now you believe without proof hey it took longer. Your bias makes you very unreasonable. you are speculating but it doesn't matter either way as transporting is a huge advantage Wars doesn't have.
Not at combat speed. So unless you're suggesting they fly away from Trek fleets I don't see the relevance. They will have to engage the Federation, Borg, etc. at some point.
Planetary defenses and what example are you referring to where they just darted around the universe destroying planets ? They wouldn't need to create two Death Stars if what you say were plausible. Once they engage the enemy the enemy can react in real time. We see the empire's fleet in return of the Jedi on top of a Death Star resisted in real time. These fights will take place in real, time.
We see a few shots take out the bridge deflector shields. That's the super star destroyer. A few smaller shitty rebels ships took out the massive overrated target.
😂
You seem to lack any logical sense of how this would take place in hyperspace. It wouldn't just be the federation it would be the Borg, Klingons, Romulans, and the Frontier. I doubt Star Wars could do it faster since you're ignoring one crucial aspect of hyperspace and the practicality of hyperdrive travel.
Why would it take longer ? Either way you look at it transporting is still an advantage because they can transport weapons and people which Star Wars needs ship in order to do so.
Why would it since every phaser and what not is restored as it reappears. You're making claims you can't prove. If you feel it can't transport exotic energy then prove it. Weapons which can emit energy are still contained with the weapon when transported without compromise. They needed a pilot to shoot the canister into the super nova as it spread. I never said they could just transport red matter into empty space. Pay attention turn to what I do say because it's backed by the films and the abilities contained within. You keep making claims you can't prove.
Originally posted by NaiThat is only relevant to seeing if their shields work not if Trek can transport to a destination. Also if they are using this technology that means they are in close proximity to being attacked.
Jammers do block any kind of scanning (see "Return of the Jedi", where jamming blocks their ability to see if the shield is still active). They need scanning in order to acquire a destination for their transportation. So if they are being jammed, they can't transport. Easy math.If we went "all series canon" the Force would crush all living things in the Star Trek universe. It has a will, it transcends the universe. Star Trek is royally screwed.
Aside from commiting a logical fallacy by asking that I should prove what those weapon can't do:
1:16 - fires into cockpit, kills pilot
2:28 - hits cockpit and mid section, killing the pilotBoring. Not that downing apparently unshielded crafts has anything to do with this debate...
Pardon me?
Have you, by chance, missed the charred skeletons of Luke's aunt and uncle having been killed by blasterfire, apparently incinerated to their bones? Have you missed poor Greedo being turned into smoking remains by Han firing at him? Have you somehow missed that Han's blaster blows rather huge chunks out of a wall and vaporizes metal, much like all other weapons in the film? With every hit on armored combatants being an instakill? And, yeah, Kylo Ren somehow survives, which isn't even constant with the portrayal of the weapon within that scene, much less that movie. One can just imagine that, being a Force user, he can simple tank more damage or maybe he used the Force to partitially protect himself. Who know. Hardly a basis to discount blasters, which are depicted as being rather powerful on every instance they are fired, exception being hit protagonists.It's getting more stupid with every part of your posting.
I don't give a damn about AT-ATs. I was just talking about their firepower to point you to the fact that the guns mounted on the ships are larger and would have even more firepower. Thanks for ignoring this entirely, you "honest debator" (roflmao).Yeah. Right. Same technology being used, but just with guns a dozen or even a hundred times bigger is not going to influence firepower [b]despite the fact that we see it onscreen
. Just go home, Quanchitroll.Yeah. How do we know that ships are shielding in a universe were all ships are shielded? It's getting even dumber now. You're just grasping for straws now in your incompetence to form arguments. SW ships are shielded in general. Fact. And you're still not getting the fact, that nobody every tried to destroy the Millenium Falcon, which is rather ridiculous by now.
Again: Totally missing the point. Star Wars ships have a strength matching Star Wars weapons. So, of course, the Millenium Falcon can tank some light turbolaser fire. And with "some" I really mean: a little bit of it.
Star Destroyer starts firing at the Falcon at 2:55, second volley is fired at 3:05 next at 3:12 and at 3:16 the alarms goes off that they are losing a deflector shield. So the Star Destroyer, firing precisely two of his light turbolasers at the Falcon, drains the shields with three volleys in about 20 seconds.
And, in case you don't remember:
At 1:39 the ship is hit by an asteroid. At 2:30 there is another impact. At 2:34, you can see that the smaller asteroids have enough energy to instantly vaporize the larger ones when hitting them. At 2:36 they are hits by a rain of asteroids. At 2:53 there are two impacts agains the shields. The Star Destoyer were dealing with that kind of stuff for days, if they weren't busy vaporizing parts of the asteroid field...
...from 0:37 on, you can see that they use the same guns to vaporize asteroids the size of the Millenium Falcon. This uses power far beyond anything that ST weapons have to offer.
Until you post something that makes sense from now on, you can consider this debate done. I won't repeat myself any longer, just because of your ferrous cranus. [/B]
Another hyperbolic statement which means nothing. You're a biased piece of garbage. You have no concrete evidence any being could resist the Q or destroy millions of Borg cubes alone. What could it do and has shown to be able to do ? Be very specific.
That hits the ship it doesn't hit the pilot. You can't prove it at that point. You just say it did but can at post stills of the blast hitting the pilot. We already see how powerful it is with regards to hitting the armor Klingons and leaving them in husks of flesh. Based off what do you feel the ships were not shielded ?
Did we see it happen ? I have numerous examples of the blaster fire fail to even leaves holes in flesh as well as storm troopers. Chunks of walls are blasted apart by Klingon weapons as well on Kronos. I see Leia hit s stormtrooper on the ewok planet and there isn't even a hole in them. I have seen Luke shot and not even be significantly harmed by the blaster fire. See here you go again with a faulty conclusion. Being a force user doesn't mean you use the force when you're hit off guard. We see how he used the force to freeze a blast midflight. That's not how the force works and you always come up with some unprovable position to somehow explain it all away. So you admit hitting protagonists means logic gets tossed out the window. I have seen their blaster fire kill multiple Jedi in order 66 and not rip apart the bodies while phaser rifles put holes through armored Klingons. That's consistent and the Boolean gun leaves them in stumps as well as downs ships unlike the blaster fire.
Debater not debator my ignorant German little enemy. So what ? It is less powerful than the Trek ships so you don't have a point. Yes, they would hence why you bringing them up has no relevance. I think wars ships are a lot more powerful but they aren't more powerful than Trek ships. My case hasn't changed and unlike you I won't lie if I believe something in favor of the side I feel prevails here.
I agree it is more powerful but I just mean it isn't always the case. In this case though I do agree.
We don't know that they are always shielded every time we see them in combat. We see shields go down and aren't following this battle chronologically. Their shields could have been taken out. We don't know. We see how easily massive Star Wars ships get destroyed when their shields are taken out by much smaller ships. It's embarrassing. The MF was attacked so yes they were t firing blanks they were damaging it. It just lacks any considerable firepower against an obviously inferior ship. That's the point. The Narada mauls the Enterprise outside of the plot making Nero stop attacking where was the MF can take the punishment and still evade the imperial superior ship.
Why did you post the Klingon scene again ? The Narada can cripple the Enterprise and destroy it in moments while thr same cannot be said for the MF. It still evaded and fled despite the attacks hitting it and not crippling it. Enterprise a superior ship to the MF was screwed and had to comply with Nero's demands while Han easily evaded their ship as well as tanking attacks from it to boot. Smart missiles >>>turbo lasers. It's just a simple mining vessel as well when compared to a galactic imperial star ship. 😂
Asteroids aren't shield protected. It wouldn't be difficult for the Enterprise to decimate asteroids as well since they can't fire back and they have the technology to decimate them. That isn't really relevant to how these ships weapons match up with each other.
Dude, things get downed very easily in Star Wars when the shields go down. We see this occur in their space battles though probably due to the limits of the technology at the time. We see simply crashing into a huge star destroy once the shields are done take it out.
So now you wanta to exit the debate while still being too chicken shit to accept a judged debate against me. Why are you so friggin scared ? If I continue on this way in a judged debate without posting any clips isn't a victory an assured thing ? Don't you have any pride ?
Savage settles it. Enterprise laughs at the shitty Millenium Falcon and so do I.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/whod-win-in-a-fight-the-millennium-falcon-or-the-u-s-s-1718290071