Originally posted by quanchi112
No, 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.
I was referring to your apparently-somewhen-to-happen Battlezone with Ellimist, you third-class excuse for a shitty debater. And gosh. I'm not a man. You're not even a human, vermin. So crawl back into the hole in your mothers basement and stop crying.
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.
Apparently, you are really that dense. Let me just explain that to you as I would attempt to explain it to an kindergarten child.
Star Trek ships are pretty big, pretty fast and need a lot of energy to be that vast.
Star Wars ships are far larger and a thousand times faster. Could it be that, to archive that, they need far more energy than Star Trek ships?
Topping it off: Star Wars has moon-sized space stations and planet-sized superweapons that are still a thousand times faster than Star Trek ship. Could it be that the energy involved in making them so fast would blow everyones mind in the Star Trek galaxy away?
In terms of "nerd math". Peak power output of an Imperial Star Destroyer is 7,73 x 10E24 Watt (or Joules per second) per officially LFL licensed material. Notice: Per Star Trek canon they fire in the Megawatt and Gigawatt range, while Star Trek friendly "Nerd Math" assumes Terrawatts. Those are four to six orders of magnitude below the Energy output of a Star Destroyer. To translate it into Quanchi-terms. If a Star Destroyer diverts just 1 percent of the energy it produces into the shields, you can have 10,000 ships the firepower of the Enterprise firing their Phasers at them without getting through the shield. Vice versa a single hit from a Star Destroyer would simply destroy the Enterprise. Thanks for playing.
And, for christ sake: Star Wars shields are not equal to Star Trek shields as shown about. So the "Star Trek ships tear through shields" commentary is utterly useless.
On a sidenote:
2:37 Just for the LOLz! And this is a star fighter.
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.
They could teleport into outer space since everything else is protected by shielding, which, mind you, you yourself have admitted they can't beam through. Furthermore: In the time they need to gather intel (with their lame ass ships) and communicate that intel (with their lame ass communication), Star Wars ships (1,000 times faster, with instant communication across the Galaxy) would already be attacking them out of nowhere. That is the realistic and consistent point of view.
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.
I have demonstrated already, why it isn't that much of an advantage (speed of SW ships / shielding they can't beam through). You have virtually no idea how long it took Khan to get to Kronos. The only thing we can go by is time passing in the film. Since you don't want to do that, you can just leave transwarp beaming out entirely, as you can't demonstrate that it is faster than any methods of SW transportation and it won't get them anywhere anyway. Pointless.
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.
They will appear out of nowhere right in front of ST fleets, destroy them and leave. Or do the same to ST planets. The ST has nothing to counter that. End of story.
Planetary defenses and what example are you referring to where they just darted around the universe destroying planets ?
Did you, by chance, miss the entire plot of "A new Hope"? Flying around the Galaxy and destroying planets is what the Death Star was build for and what he does with Alderaan and was about to do with Yavin 4. You can see the planetary shielding of Alderaan glowing when hit by the Death Star superlaser (meaning it actually managed to stop it for a short period of time). It could get anywhere in the Trek galaxy and destroy any planet just minutes after its arival in the system. No counter available for Star Trek.
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.
What the hell are you talking about?
Of course the battles happen in real time. The point is, that a Death Star could just move into a system, destroy a planet and move out of the system again, with no Trek ship being fast enough to follow it. They can just repeat that, until all vital planets of Trek are gone, with additional volleys coming from Starkiller Base. They don't even need to engage Star Trek in space-combat in order to defeat them.
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.
Last time I checked, that Super Star Destroyer was part of rather long space-battle at that point in time, with probably everything of the Rebel fleet (equipped with weapons far beyond anything Star Trek has to offer, including B-Wings like the one seen in the video above) focusing fire on that particular ship. Hell. Ackbar gives explicit command to do so in the movie - and given that none of the other Star Destroyers (with weaker shielding) is destroyed...
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.
All Star Trek factions combined are still a joke compared to the Galaxy spanning political entity that is the Galactic Empire. Which does, surprise, rule pretty much the entire Star Wars Galaxy with all its resources.
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.
WHERE WOULD THEY TRANSPORT THOSE PEOPLE AND WEAPONS TO?
No beaming through shielding. They can't beam to Star Wars planets. They can't beam to Star Wars ships. They can't beam to Star Wars space-stations. So either they beam their asses on some ass backward planet, where they would be entirely useless, or they could beam themselves into outer space. The only other alternative would be Star Trek ships, but where would be the point of that again?
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.
😂
If they could have beamed red matter into the supernova, they would have done it, because a) this would have had saved Romolus and b) there wouldn't have been any need to put Spock into danger. Fact. Furthermore: What do you want them to do with the red matter then, since you want it to be used against Star Wars ships / space-stations. They can't get it there via ships, so beaming would have been the only option.
Originally posted by quanchi112
That 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.
Good that those attacks would be pretty much not doing anything then.
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.
I'd say the Bedlam Spirits, with complete control over space, time and matter, capable of ressurrecting the dead (which is beyond the Q) would be a good choice. And, according to The Phantom Menace, the Force has a will. So you have a universe spanning energy field that touches all live within the universe. It could, literally, will any living thing to die if it wanted to. So if you want to introduce omnipotent entities, Trek loses instantly.
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 ?
Because we do not see the usual shield - phaser interaction happening, those ships were obviously not shielded. D'uh. Futhermore shooting a giant hole through the cockpit from the front to the middle of the ship or from the bottom through the top of the cockpit - as happens in the scene - is pretty much guaranteed to kill the pilot, unlike he is more durable than the outer hull of the ship.
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.
Yes. It happens every freaking time.
Storm Troopers wear armor, in case you didn't notice, and are still killed by blaster-fire a wooping 100 percent of the time when hit. The only instances where it doesn't really cause a huge effect is when Luke and Leia are hit in ROTJ (one hit on a protestic hand in Luke's case and a glancing hit on the arm in the case of Leia).
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.
So the stormtrooper died by the shock of the impact? LOL.
I have seen Luke shot and not even be significantly harmed by the blaster fire.
Into his artificial hand, which had a pretty nice hole in it afterwards. How did you miss that one?
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.
Being a force user means, that you can put up resistance against Blaster fire. And catching beings that can see the future "off guard" is a bit hard to do. Even if Kylo didn't move fast enough to deflect the bolt, that doesn't mean that he didn't conjure some kind of force defense on instinct. There is no other explanation for him remaining on his lacks, were all (armored) troops hit by the weapon were tossed around like ragdolls and died instantly. Still suspension of disbelief dictates, that you need to find a logical explanation, rather than discarding all previous displays of blaster fire and attempt to argue from the low end showings, while taking the absolute high end of Star Trek.
Debater not debator my ignorant German little enemy.
"You spelled a word wrong in a foreign language, that you have still grasped better than me, the native speaker." Holy shit. You're pathetic. And thanks for not even contradicting that claim. *Claps slowly*
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.
Since the guns on the AT-AT, that, you know, destroy buildings, are already more powerful than those funny little Star Trek phaser weapons on the ships, I'd say the ship mounted Star Wars weapons are by far more powerful. You counter to that is, until now "I don't think so". No reason given, no evidence to the contrary. Just your opinion, that nobody care about.
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.
You're such a moron, it's unbelieveable.
We can't determine their firepower against the Millenium Falcon, because they are just hitting the shields of the Millenium Falcon, which we can just compare to the firepower they can absorb. This is arguing in circles. Hence me introducing the asteroid scene. The same guns that are blocked by the Falcon's shields deliver enough energy to instantly vaporize asteroids the size of the Millenium Falcon or bigger. I could translate that into "nerd math" for you, but since you want to keep facts out of it, let me point the following out for you:
Those asteroids would have a diameter of 30 to 50 meters. No imagine a single light turbolaser shot hitting the hull of the Enterprise and leaving a hole that big in it. This would do more damage than any weapon we've seen so far in Star Trek, which some of those - inferior - weapons taking out 95 percent of the Star Trek shields with a single hit. So one hit of a light turbolaser would probably disable the Enterprise shields, a second would cause significant damage to the ship. The Millenium Falcon tanks dozens of those hits. Conclusion: Millenium Falcon > Enterprise in terms of shield. Star Wars vastly superior to Star Trek in terms of shielding and firepower. Unless you produce a counter argument, you can just shut up, because there is nothing to argue there. And there isn't (see energy generation for Star Destroyer above).
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. 😂
Are you now comparing the Narrada to the Millenium Falcon to attempt to make a point? 😂
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.
It's nice that you don't have the mental faculties to understand why I introduced the scene. For elaboration: See above. And, well, you would be quite wrong with your accessment of the situation:
Targeting the asteroids weakest point. Not doing anything. Impressive. 😂
Meanwhile in the Star Wars Galaxy:
I think we have a winner...
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.
Since Star Trek hasn't the firepower to make the shields go down, as seen above, there is nothing to worry about for the Star Wars side. Good to know.
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 ?
What debate?
I'm just owning your silly ass the entire time, while you fail to provide a single argument for your side, except of your personal opinion. You call that a debate? I call that laughable. Nothing new. Cheap entertainment.
Originally posted by quanchi112
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
That depends on the laser, doesn't it? Just because they laughed at the lasers of some ancient ship does not mean they can laugh at Star Wars "lasers." we have lasers in real life. Our lasers cannot hope to disintegrate meteors on impact.
Originally posted by NaiJokes on you as I'm in your mothers basement. She will do anything for me.
I was referring to your apparently-somewhen-to-happen Battlezone with Ellimist, you third-class excuse for a shitty debater. And gosh. I'm not a man. You're not even a human, vermin. So crawl back into the hole in your mothers basement and stop crying.Apparently, you are really that dense. Let me just explain that to you as I would attempt to explain it to an kindergarten child.
Star Trek ships are pretty big, pretty fast and need a lot of energy to be that vast.
Star Wars ships are far larger and a thousand times faster. Could it be that, to archive that, they need far more energy than Star Trek ships?
Topping it off: Star Wars has moon-sized space stations and planet-sized superweapons that are still a thousand times faster than Star Trek ship. Could it be that the energy involved in making them so fast would blow everyones mind in the Star Trek galaxy away?In terms of "nerd math". Peak power output of an Imperial Star Destroyer is 7,73 x 10E24 Watt (or Joules per second) per officially LFL licensed material. Notice: Per Star Trek canon they fire in the Megawatt and Gigawatt range, while Star Trek friendly "Nerd Math" assumes Terrawatts. Those are four to six orders of magnitude below the Energy output of a Star Destroyer. To translate it into Quanchi-terms. If a Star Destroyer diverts just 1 percent of the energy it produces into the shields, you can have 10,000 ships the firepower of the Enterprise firing their Phasers at them without getting through the shield. Vice versa a single hit from a Star Destroyer would simply destroy the Enterprise. Thanks for playing.
And, for christ sake: Star Wars shields are not equal to Star Trek shields as shown about. So the "Star Trek ships tear through shields" commentary is utterly useless.
On a sidenote:
2:37 Just for the LOLz! And this is a star fighter.
They could teleport into outer space since everything else is protected by shielding, which, mind you, you yourself have admitted they can't beam through. Furthermore: In the time they need to gather intel (with their lame ass ships) and communicate that intel (with their lame ass communication), Star Wars ships (1,000 times faster, with instant communication across the Galaxy) would already be attacking them out of nowhere. That is the realistic and consistent point of view.
I have demonstrated already, why it isn't that much of an advantage (speed of SW ships / shielding they can't beam through). You have virtually no idea how long it took Khan to get to Kronos. The only thing we can go by is time passing in the film. Since you don't want to do that, you can just leave transwarp beaming out entirely, as you can't demonstrate that it is faster than any methods of SW transportation and it won't get them anywhere anyway. Pointless.
They will appear out of nowhere right in front of ST fleets, destroy them and leave. Or do the same to ST planets. The ST has nothing to counter that. End of story.
Did you, by chance, miss the entire plot of "A new Hope"? Flying around the Galaxy and destroying planets is what the Death Star was build for and what he does with Alderaan and was about to do with Yavin 4. You can see the planetary shielding of Alderaan glowing when hit by the Death Star superlaser (meaning it actually managed to stop it for a short period of time). It could get anywhere in the Trek galaxy and destroy any planet just minutes after its arival in the system. No counter available for Star Trek.
What the hell are you talking about?
Of course the battles happen in real time. The point is, that a Death Star could just move into a system, destroy a planet and move out of the system again, with no Trek ship being fast enough to follow it. They can just repeat that, until all vital planets of Trek are gone, with additional volleys coming from Starkiller Base. They don't even need to engage Star Trek in space-combat in order to defeat them.Last time I checked, that Super Star Destroyer was part of rather long space-battle at that point in time, with probably
All Star Trek factions combined are still a joke compared to the Galaxy spanning political entity that is the Galactic Empire. at again?
😂
If they could have beamed red matter into theGood that those attacks would be pretty much not doing anything then.
They are not faster in combat. Take the Star Destroyers they can barely maneuver out of the way when anither star destroyer almost clipped it in ESB. That's called combat maneuverability not travel hyperspace. You need to prove it then but you can't since much smaller ships can bring down the executor once the shields have been taken down.
So what you're saying is they have gigantic targets and aren't very combat maneuverable. The planet sized super weapons are very susceptible to smaller ships as evidenced in the films dialogue. Star Trek can create black holes with tiny blobs of red matter whereas Star Wars needs planet sized space stations to do maintain their super weapon. Which is more effective and requires less manpower and energy ? Hmmm.
Pure bs. What has the star destroyer brought down comparable to the Enterprise with one shot ? Not even the MF for ****s sake. You are reaching as always with the percentages to favor Star Wars to unimaginable fanboy heights.
And here you go with the Star Wars series which isn't fair game. I could post a link to huge Star Trek ships throughout the series but it seems you're trying to cheat in this thread due to losing.
Around 51-52 minutes into ESB an asteroid blows up a huge chunk of a star destroyer that it hits. Those poor awful shields.
They can trans warp beam while they are traveling at warp speed. They don't need to beam through. asteroids break through the shields quite easily even if the star destroyers. What's that say about the phaser and weaponry of the Trek ships.
Travel speed isn't the same as combat speed so once they attack the time it will take place in is real time. If Trek goes into warp and Wars tries to follow they will fly right past them not really proving anything to tell you the truth.
Trek doesn't need to transport through their shields. You have virtually no idea how quickly the hyperdrive takes place at any point in Star Wars. We see the trans warp beaming take place in real time. We see and can get a reasonable idea how quickly it can take place within. I don't have to prove its faster I can just state it's an advantage as they don't need a ship and can tras port men and weapons without a ship. It isn't pointless you clown and it is an advantage you want to ignore.
Once they appear out of nowhere they can see and react to them just the same as if a trek ship appeared out of nowhere in warp speed. Your reasoning falls apart since Trek ships can also warp out of nowhere but that doesn't mean they don't have to attack in real time outside of warp when it's over.
How many planets did they destroy before the Death Star was destroyed ? How quickly did this take place in ? Should I really reveal the embarrassing realtime. Not before Trek can react. Quit making more baseless claims. Red matter takes it out very easily.
When does this ever take place ? In fact you're ignoring the time it takes to move into range in Rotj to sell your pitiful over exaggerated point. You dishonest debaters nauseat me. Quit ignoring the portrayals of these weapons and all the trek forces which can easily take these super weapons out with red blobs.
That isn't what we see but once again you want to give them every benefit of the doubt and ignore the evidence because you're a huge fanboy. You can't change the facts or how easily the super star destroyer was destroyed.
Bullshit. The Borg alone had millions of cubes. That's one Star Trek enemy but lucky for you its films only. Even in that case they still lose due to the different factions, superior weaponry, and superior problem solving of the Trek side. Dude, ewoks and a wookiee humiliate the empire's troops.
Beam onto trek ships, space stations, planets, etc. If anything is going badly they can easily escape ala Spock on Vulcan when the Narada decimated it via red matter.
I never said they'd beam red matter into the super nova but a pilot could jettison it into a target. They can beam red matter onto another location and then that pilot could jettison it into a wars target. Ships and beaming are two options. To jettison it you need a ship or a kamikaze type maneuver.
Asteroids take out on tie fighters and huge parts of star destroyers. It also doesn't take much to destroy the executors deflector shields.
😂
Originally posted by NaiBed.am spirits aren't canon but the Q is. You're so desperate. Saying it has a will doesn't prove anything. When has the force ever stepped in to stop a godlike being or anyone directly you can prove for that matter. More baseless claims you can't back. Are you done being ridiculous ?
I'd say the Bedlam Spirits, with complete control over space, time and matter, capable of ressurrecting the dead (which is beyond the Q) would be a good choice. And, according to The Phantom Menace, the Force has a will. So you have a universe spanning energy field that touches all live within the universe. It could, literally, will any living thing to die if it wanted to. So if you want to introduce omnipotent entities, Trek loses instantly.Because we do not see the usual shield - phaser interaction happening, those ships were obviously not shielded. D'uh. Futhermore shooting a giant hole through the cockpit from the front to the middle of the ship or from the bottom through the top of the cockpit - as happens in the scene - is pretty much guaranteed to kill the pilot, unlike he is more durable than the outer hull of the ship.
Yes. It happens every freaking time.
Storm Troopers wear armor, in case you didn't notice, and are still killed by blaster-fire a wooping 100 percent of the time when hit. The only instances where it doesn't really cause a huge effect is when Luke and Leia are hit in ROTJ (one hit on a protestic hand in Luke's case and a glancing hit on the arm in the case of Leia).So the stormtrooper died by the shock of the impact? LOL.
Into his artificial hand, which had a pretty nice hole in it afterwards. How did you miss that one?
Being a force user means, that you can put up resistance against Blaster fire. And catching beings that can see the future "off guard" is a bit hard to do. Even if Kylo didn't move fast enough to deflect the bolt, that doesn't mean that he didn't conjure some kind of force defense on instinct. There is no other explanation for him remaining on his lacks, were all (armored) troops hit by the weapon were tossed around like ragdolls and died instantly. Still suspension of disbelief dictates, that you need to find a logical explanation, rather than discarding all previous displays of blaster fire and attempt to argue from the low end showings, while taking the absolute high end of Star Trek.
"You spelled a word wrong in a foreign language, that you have still grasped better than me, the native speaker." Holy shit. You're pathetic. And thanks for not even contradicting that claim. *Claps slowly*
Since the guns on the AT-AT, that, you know, destroy buildings, are already more powerful than those funny little Star Trek phaser weapons on the ships, I'd say the ship mounted Star Wars weapons are by far more powerful. You counter to that is, until now "I don't think so". No reason given, no evidence to the contrary. Just your opinion, that nobody care about.
🙄
You're such a moron, it's unbelieveable.
We can't determine their firepower against the Millenium Falcon, because they are just hitting the shields of the Millenium Falcon, which we can just compare to the firepower they can absorb. This is arguing in circles. Hence me introducing the asteroid scene. The same guns that are blocked by the Falcon's shields deliver enough energy to instantly vaporize asteroids the size of the Millenium Falcon or bigger. I could translate that into "nerd math" for you, but since you want to keep facts out of it, let me point the following out for you:Those asteroids would have a diameter of 30 to 50 meters. No imagine a single light turbolaser shot hitting the hull of the Enterprise and leaving a hole that big in it. This would do more damage than any weapon we've seen so far in Star Trek, which some of those - inferior - weapons taking out 95 percent of the Star Trek shields with a single hit. So one hit of a light turbolaser would probably disable the Enterprise shields, a second would cause significant damage to the ship. The Millenium Falcon tanks dozens of those hits. Conclusion: Millenium Falcon > Enterprise in terms of shield. Star Wars vastly superior to Star Trek in terms of shielding and firepower. Unless you produce a counter argument, you can just shut up, because there is nothing to argue there. And there isn't (see energy generation for Star Destroyer above).
Are you now comparing the Narrada to the Millenium Falcon to attempt to make a point? 😂
It's nice that you don't have the mental faculties to understand why I introduced the scene. For elaboration: See above. And, well, you would be quite wrong with your accessment of the situation:
Targeting the asteroids weakest point. Not doing anything. Impressive. 😂
Meanwhile in the Star Wars Galaxy:
I think we have a winner...
Since Star Trek hasn't the firepower to make the shields go down, as seen above, there is nothing to worry about for the Star Wars side. Good to know.
What debate?
I'm just owning your silly ass the entire time, while you fail to provide a single argument for your side, except of your personal opinion. You call that a debate? I call that laughable. Nothing new. Cheap entertainment.
You saying that isn't proving it. That gun is powerful and we have seen other powerful attacks tear right through trek shields. So you believe the shot is powerful enough to tear right through whatever it hits on the ship thus backing my claim.
So did Klingons yet Khan put multiple holes in them even with his phaser rifle. Kylo Ren as well. He was hit by an even more powerful weapon than a blaster. My point was not every single time a trooper was hit did it leave a hole. I'm accurate.
Didn't leave a visible hole in the armor. People can die by impact without huge holes in them you German miscreant.
That doesn't explain away Leia or Ben Solo.
Prove it. So you believe he can freeze them but in this instance he just absurd some of the shock. Are you kidding me ? What happened when the light saber struck him ? Did he absorb some of that too ? I am arguing all showings and there are more without holes than with holes. Trek has holes and stumps every single time with that kind of weaponry.
I already rebutted your irrelevant claims but you can't spell debater correctly. You've been a debater for how long and don't even know how to spell it. You're an embarrassment. Your mother and I are disgusted as I hit here in her basement fondling her hair.
What on earth are you talking about ? The Vengeance wrecks buildings easily without even firing on them in San Francisco despite the torpedoes going off on the ship. The vengeance destroyed a much bigger building crashing than an At At can with its guns.
Asteroids instantly vaporize other asteroids in Star Wars as they do tie fighters and what not. It's fiction and silly but since the do so it's in the same manner undermining the Wars technology since they can do the same. Very unrealistic mind you but it's Star Wars. Nah, an asteroid can obliterate the MF just as it did the tie fighters in a direct hit. Lucky Han didn't get caught as the others so no these ships shields aren't that impressive since asteroids can completely obliterate them.
Super star destroyers shields go down when their deflector shields re easily destroyed and then all it takes is a much smaller ship to crash into a key point to bring the entire ship down.
Narada would maul the executor as well.
Tie fighters go into asteroid field and get obliterated. Trek has to avoid them as well. The enterprise isn't a military grade weapon and it's the original one. The enterprise isn't one of their formidable ships comparing it to USS Vengeance or the Narada. Films only.
An asteroid can blow then the hell up. Why can't the enterprise blow them up ?? Asteroids completely obliterate them.
No, you are exaggerating and flat out making shit up. You've referenced non canon beings and tried citing the series to back your flimsy and pathetic case. You're a joke and a gutless one to boot.
Originally posted by Chosen_SithHe seemed to compare the two techs and laugh at Star Wars. His opinion carries weight. I can post another intelligent and renowned genius siding with trek to but why go to the trouble. We know they are more powerful so why beat a dead horse.
That depends on the laser, doesn't it? Just because they laughed at the lasers of some ancient ship does not mean they can laugh at Star Wars "lasers." we have lasers in real life. Our lasers cannot hope to disintegrate meteors on impact.
Originally posted by quanchi112
[Troll]Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda.[/Troll]
It's this (best ship available at the time):
...VS that (a private vessel, insignificant next to the best of SW):
'Nuff said
Things you failed to adress:
1)
Star Wars huge (read: gigantic) advantage in travel speed, communication speed (instant on a Galactic scale), power generation, firepower, shielding. Best counter-argument so far: "Nay."
2)
How do they get red matter anywhere close to Star Wars ships (considering the above mentioned speed advantage of those)? I ruled out all options, you keep saying "They destroy X with Red Matter".
3)
How do they get rid of things like the Death Star(s) or Starkiller Base? How do they get rid of the Empire's galaxy spanning military, backed by production and logistics that made them capable of assembling the second Death Star in less than three years.
What you've done so far, is attempted downtalking of everything related to Star Wars, while ignoring any kind of context, on-screen depictions and explanations. At the same time, you attempted to upvalue anything related to Star Trek, exeggerating almost anything from the actual state of the art to development to usefullness of technologies. That might be enough to convince yourself, small-minded little sheep that you are, but it does neither constitute as an argument, nor is it worth replying to any longer. The disparity in terms of firepower is visible in the videos above. From there, we can draw conclusions to shielding. Result: Star Wars wipes the floor with Star Trek ships - backed by canon numbers from both universes publications, further demonstrated by "nerd math". That you can't cope with that may be highly amusing for a while, but now it's just you being pathetic.
On a sidenote:
Originally posted by quanchi112
He seemed to compare the two techs and laugh at Star Wars. His opinion carries weight. I can post another intelligent and renowned genius siding with trek to but why go to the trouble. We know they are more powerful so why beat a dead horse.
This is what is called an "appeal to authority", which is a logical fallacy (not that you would notice those). Being especially laughable, given that he a) has no authority at all and b) he, apparently, doesn't know that "turbolasers" (while having the word "laser" in their names) aren't lasers at all, evident from on-screen behaviour of the fired shots. But, of course, one would need to have some basic grasp of physics to understand that, which one is not to expect from a special-effect designer like Adam Savage and much less from KMC laughing stock Quanchimon.
Hint for starters: Lasers are constant beams that travel at lightspeed and don't "explode" against targets / shields.
If turbolasers were lasers, they wouldn't be visible in space from a vantage point they aren't traveling through.
But even if they were lasers, it wouldn't matter - what is important is their specifications, not their "type". Their firepower ratings measure in the teratons for heavy turbolasers*, around six orders of magnitude above that of Federation ship mounted photon topredos. That lasers in Star Trek are weak says nothing about the lasers in a universe with millions of times the energy generation abilities, lawl.
This would be like laughing at the K-T extinction event because it's "just a primitive rock". 😂
* using only the movies, you can estimate this value by scaling from power generation figures stemming from acceleration feats and the Death Star. Directly you can arrive at a figure of many gigatons by scaling from the really tiny turbolasers that are vaporizing 40 meter long iron-nickel asteroids.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Rigorous analysis which isn't proven by the film.
Newsflash: when someone presents evidence for a point, you can't just respond to said evidence by waving your hands and saying "this doesn't prove anything!". You have to,, you know, actually explain WHAT is wrong with the argument.
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.
This sentence is semantically meaningless. All conclusions that you could draw from a film are analysis of varying degrees of accuracy and precision. If you see Han Solo getting killed by a lightsaber stab and conclude that he isn't immune to lightsabers or that lightsabers can kill people, that's still an analysis of an event and an attempt to draw predictions from available evidence - the only distinction between this and more complex calculations is the degree of extrapolation, and this is a continuous scale wherein the line of acceptability has not been drawn nor justified by you.
And still, you obviously have no idea how math or science work on even the most basic level. Actually, this is just a matter of elementary logic - if the premises and logic are both valid, then the conclusion MUST be sound. What this means is that, if the calculations in question are based on valid observations from the movie, and are themselves properly done, they do constitute proof of whatever claim they're making. The onus would be on you to demonstrate a) a flaw in their assumptions or b) a flaw in the mathematics, not to vaguely wave your hand around and complain about "nerds" doing this weird thing called "math".
And really, how does this criticism not apply to every argument you're making? Is it ever stated outright in a Star Trek episode that they would beat Star Wars' ass easily? No? So wouldn't any extrapolations of such constitute "analysis", which is apparently a dirty word for you? Oh, right, you just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
I didn't say my common sense is a fact I simply gave you my perspective.
Yes, you're entitled for your own opinion. It's just that your arguments for it are shit.
I place a higher value on portrayals than feats anyways.
There're the exact same thing, except that "feats" can colloquially refer to portrayals that are analyzed and dissected to a degree beyond your comprehension - but once again, if they're valid arguments from valid premises, they are true regardless of whether quanchi can grasp them.
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.
Translation: there are some apparent inconsistencies in the evidence so I'm just going to make up my own conclusions and call that "common sense".
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.
That's because you might have noticed that in all of your replies, you never give any specific, articulated arguments, but instead make vague lists of assertions and just call that "my perspective".
Let's do an exercise; go back and read this post I'm replying to up to this point. Do you notice that you never actually bring up any examples or arguments to support your vague claims of "common sense" being violated? Literally a vague allusion to Han Solo's blaster is the first time you've actually said anything of substance, and it's really, really obvious.
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.
Han's blaster doesn't just cause explosions once, lmao. It consistently blasts massive holes in solid walls and kills armored stormtroopers in a single hit. Which contrary scenes are you referring to?
Regardless, small arms are hardly going to be the deciding factor here.
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.
The question of technological progress is a separate question from what technological level they have currently attained.
So let's recap what quanchi hasn't even begun to address to any coherent degree:
1. Star Wars ships can cross their galaxy in hours, while it takes the Enterprise seven years to cross a portion of the Alpha Quadrant. This is a massive advantage. The speed disparity is such that:
a) Star Trek has no hope of ever even launching an attack on Star Wars in any reasonable timeframe, or mapping out their galaxy to a sufficient extent to know what to attack in the first place.
b) Star Wars ships can strike anywhere at anytime. This would force Star Trek to disperse its fleet thin throughout all of its important planets, because it won't be able to move or even communicate fast enough to mobilize ships from other star systems.
So let's assume for a moment that they have even numbers of ships and planets - which is obviously not the case. Say 100 planets and 100 ships for Star Wars and Star Trek each. Since Star Wars doesn't have to worry about counterattacks, it can take 90 of them, target important and/or weak worlds in Star Trek, and then send all 90 at those particular targets at a time. Meanwhile, because Star Trek wouldn't be able to afford the days or weeks to send reinforcements to repel said quick attack, they'd have to put, say, 1 ship on every planet, or otherwise abandon a few and still end up spreading themselves thin. See the problem here? That's 90 ships concentrating attacks against planets with like 1 ship defending them, lawl.
2. The industry of Star Wars is superior by multiple orders of magnitude. It was said that the Federation would take years to recover the 46 or so ships they lost against the Borg Cube. Meanwhile, the Galactic Empire was able to construct to more than 50% completion a 900 kilometer diameter second Death Star, massing trillions of said ships the Federation lost, in secret, in the Outer Rim, away from all of its industrial bases.
Now consider the implications this has given that Star Trek will take decades if not centuries to mount any sort of assault. There's simply no way they could win a battle of attrition, not unless each of their ships can take out 100 billion Star Wars ones.
3. Star Wars is just far more massive. If we are only using the movies, we know that Dooku just casually mentions that "another ten thousand star systems" have joined their cause at a random board meeting. Hardly surprising, given that they've mapped out every star in the galaxy, and are constantly referred to as a galactic civilization. Meanwhile, the Federation has what - a few hundred planets? And most are incredibly sparsely populated, to the point where they're essentially isolated outposts.
The burden of proof has hence shifted on quanchi to suggest that Star Trek is not only superior mano a mano, but superior by like six orders of magnitude. Get on it.
4. Superweapons. Who cares about red matter? Not only would the weak-ass ship delivering it get shot down immediately, refer to the FTL speeds - it would take them decades to get anywhere. Not true for the Death Stars or Starkiller base - no, these can effectively genocide the Alpha Quadrant in a matter of weeks, and there's absolutely nothing Star Trek can do against them, not when they can move anywhere in the galaxy in hours and bust planets in seconds.
But let's say both sides really could kill planets at comparable rates - refer to the previous size distinction. Star Wars just has more room to lost planets, whereas destroying Vulcan alone made the Vulcans an endangered species. They win the war of attrition, sorry.
5. The firepower. The calculations have been made and analyzed, and no, quanchi saying "common sense" and sticking his fingers in his ear =/= a substantive rebuttal. A single imperial star destroyer could effortlessly take on the entire Federation starfleet and emerge with barely a scratch on its armor.
6. Planetary shields.
7. The suicidal tactics of Star Trek soldiers that allow redshirts in entrenched positions to get overwhelmed by Klingons charging with melee weaponry.
👆
Originally posted by NaiKey words at the time
[b]It's this (best ship available at the time):...VS that (a private vessel, insignificant next to the best of SW):
'Nuff said
Things you failed to adress:
1)
Star Wars huge (read: gigantic) advantage in travel speed, communication speed (instant on a Galactic scale), power generation, firepower, shielding. Best counter-argument so far: "Nay."2)
How do they get red matter anywhere close to Star Wars ships (considering the above mentioned speed advantage of those)? I ruled out all options, you keep saying "They destroy X with Red Matter".3)
How do they get rid of things like the Death Star(s) or Starkiller Base? How do they get rid of the Empire's galaxy spanning military, backed by production and logistics that made them capable of assembling the second Death Star in less than three years.What you've done so far, is attempted downtalking of everything related to Star Wars, while ignoring any kind of context, on-screen depictions and explanations. At the same time, you attempted to upvalue anything related to Star Trek, exeggerating almost anything from the actual state of the art to development to usefullness of technologies. That might be enough to convince yourself, small-minded little sheep that you are, but it does neither constitute as an argument, nor is it worth replying to any longer. The disparity in terms of firepower is visible in the videos above. From there, we can draw conclusions to shielding. Result: Star Wars wipes the floor with Star Trek ships - backed by canon numbers from both universes publications, further demonstrated by "nerd math". That you can't cope with that may be highly amusing for a while, but now it's just you being pathetic.
On a sidenote:
This is what is called an "appeal to authority", which is a logical fallacy (not that you would notice those). Being especially laughable, given that he a) has no authority at all and b) he, apparently, doesn't know that "turbolasers" (while having the word "laser" in their names) aren't lasers at all, evident from on-screen behaviour of the fired shots. But, of course, one would need to have some basic grasp of physics to understand that, which one is not to expect from a special-effect designer like Adam Savage and much less from KMC laughing stock Quanchimon.
Hint for starters: Lasers are constant beams that travel at lightspeed and don't "explode" against targets / shields. [/B]
Ok let's review what this means to all you egomaniacs from Germany who can't see the Forster for the trees. That means at that specific point in time in that reality. You see Trek films go hundreds of years from that point so acting as if it's the best ship or even comparable is quite frankly laughable but go in being you. We have a simple mining vessel from the future so far beyond the Enterprise they need a black friggin hole and another futuristic ship the Jellyfish as well as the element of surprise to even the odds. What's even worse asteroid friends are a huge problem for military grade ships from the empire which are much smaller and more maneuverable. Han Solo makes it clear how bad of an idea it was to enter the field and it's still a huge deal in Wars just as it is in Trek save you aren't comparing the more formidable ships.
1). Shielding ?? When ? Asteroids obliterate what they hit on a star destroyer, tie fighters, etc. lasers easily destroy the smaller ships in combat as well. Rebutted. We see the greatest of the star destroyers go down on the goddamn silver screen. It laughably had its deflector shields taken down and then went down in relatively quick succession with a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller ship crashes into it. Trek has the more impressive shielding and their firepower is vastly superior since it actually tears through shielding with single attacks. I have cited the example of a star destroyer hitting the MF multiple times without any significant damage on a much smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller ship. Communication speed ?? In what ways did they demonstrate how effective this is ? We see Kylo having to run back to Snoke and say hey we got this girl and hey she might be something special. Bring her to me. He then loses her in typical moronic fashion and then he rages out. Oh how bloody effective. How did they do with regards to the BB unit ? Were they successful ? I mean for ****s sake these guys couldn't even put down a small resistance force and some goddamn ewoks with spears and stones.
2) the Star Wars ships and stations have to get closer to attack. What ducking planet are you from in which Wars ships are invisible and don't even have to be in the same galaxy to attack ? Did you watch return if the ****ing Jedi ? Death Star seemed to take its goddamn time.
3) red matter. I've already covered this. Both are highly susceptible to smaller ships. It's referenced in the goddamn movie. 3 years huh a d was it completed ? How much manpower did that take ?
Unlike you I've actually supported the on screen depictions while you've attempted to exaggerate any and all things Star Wars related. You're a fanboy. You've been telling me I'm not worth replying to for days so save your empty I'm done threats. See something through to the end you gutless pansy. You're a quitter. I suspect you've been this way your whole life while justifying your actions so you can sleep at night all the while taking the easy way out before you see anything through to the end.
False, we see smaller ships take out super star destroyers which don't have the firepower of the superior trek ships such as the Narada, Enterprise D, Vengeance, or the Borg Cube.
This is what I call another nationally recognized intelligent human being making the obvious choice, Trek. There are others but if you watch the video you can hear plenty of ignorant people say MF because they had no ****ing clue. So lasers are not lasers. You're an idiot but go ahead and prove it. You disgust me. Flaming from the worlds biggest quitter. Lasers aren't lasers. Not in Star Wars.
😂 😂
Originally posted by The EllimistOh lord. Lasers are lasers. This is the same universe they use the friggin force so this jump yo logically connect the dots in a fictional universe is an exercise in futility.
If turbolasers were lasers, they wouldn't be visible in space from a vantage point they aren't traveling through.But even if they were lasers, it wouldn't matter - what is important is their specifications, not their "type". Their firepower ratings measure in the teratons for heavy turbolasers*, around six orders of magnitude above that of Federation ship mounted photon topredos. That lasers in Star Trek are weak says nothing about the lasers in a universe with millions of times the energy generation abilities, lawl.
This would be like laughing at the K-T extinction event because it's "just a primitive rock". 😂
* using only the movies, you can estimate this value by scaling from power generation figures stemming from acceleration feats and the Death Star. Directly you can arrive at a figure of many gigatons by scaling from the really tiny turbolasers that are vaporizing 40 meter long iron-nickel asteroids.
I never said Star Wars doesn't have powerful weapons or lasers I said Trek has powerful weapons as well as superior shielding. The Death Star is very powerful but guess what it's susceptible to smaller ships and a black hole would definitely take this thing out. Death Star has to get in range to its target to fire. Everything in Star Wars vaporizes each other. Asteroids vaporize ships as well its for dramatic effect not for someone to try to assign a value to the power required to do so. Just like we see the cross caster wreck shop and send Stormtroopers back a. Considerable difference with armor in one scene but in another they don't even send Kylo Ren back without armor but just a robe to protect himself.
Originally posted by The EllimistThe only way to prove it is to support it with a statement within the film otherwise it's just speculative at best. It isn't up to me to disprove unproven theories.
Newsflash: when someone presents evidence for a point, you can't just respond to said evidence by waving your hands and saying "this doesn't prove anything!". You have to,, you know, actually explain WHAT is wrong with the argument.This sentence is semantically meaningless. [b]All
conclusions that you could draw from a film are analysis of varying degrees of accuracy and precision. If you see Han Solo getting killed by a lightsaber stab and conclude that he isn't immune to lightsabers or that lightsabers can kill people, that's still an analysis of an event and an attempt to draw predictions from available evidence - the only distinction between this and more complex calculations is the degree of extrapolation, and this is a continuous scale wherein the line of acceptability has not been drawn nor justified by you.And still, you obviously have no idea how math or science work on even the most basic level. Actually, this is just a matter of elementary logic - if the premises and logic are both valid, then the conclusion MUST be sound. What this means is that, if the calculations in question are based on valid observations from the movie, and are themselves properly done, they do constitute proof of whatever claim they're making. The onus would be on you to demonstrate a) a flaw in their assumptions or b) a flaw in the mathematics, not to vaguely wave your hand around and complain about "nerds" doing this weird thing called "math".
And really, how does this criticism not apply to every argument you're making? Is it ever stated outright in a Star Trek episode that they would beat Star Wars' ass easily? No? So wouldn't any extrapolations of such constitute "analysis", which is apparently a dirty word for you? Oh, right, you just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?
Yes, you're entitled for your own opinion. It's just that your arguments for it are shit.
There're the exact same thing, except that "feats" can colloquially refer to portrayals that are analyzed and dissected to a degree beyond your comprehension - but once again, if they're valid arguments from valid premises, they are true regardless of whether quanchi can grasp them.
Translation: there are some apparent inconsistencies in the evidence so I'm just going to make up my own conclusions and call that "common sense".
That's because you might have noticed that in all of your replies, you never give any specific, articulated arguments, but instead make vague lists of assertions and just call that "my perspective".
Let's do an exercise; go back and read this post I'm replying to up to this point. Do you notice that you never actually bring up any examples or arguments to support your vague claims of "common sense" being violated? Literally a vague allusion to Han Solo's blaster is the first time you've actually said anything of substance, and it's really, really obvious.
Han's blaster doesn't just cause explosions once, lmao. It consistently blasts massive holes in solid walls and kills armored stormtroopers in a single hit. Which contrary scenes are you referring to?
Regardless, small arms are hardly going to be the deciding factor here.
The question of technological progress is a separate question from what technological level they have currently attained. [/B]
No, your perspective isn't a film fact. We need a blanket statement or something more concerted than you reaching a certain conclusion. That's a fact. That's debating based off facts but one could also conclude it depends on the location of the light saber stab which kills said victim. You're still speculating on something you can't definitively prove. If you can then that's another matter but it has to be something very concrete as in stated in the film or backed by an official source.
It's fiction so you trying to correlate the two to sync up is ridiculous. We have writers in fiction without the basic understanding as well throwing numbers out there which don't add up. It's any basic storytelling premise to grip the viewer. In reality everything has to make sense or logically add up but in fiction we see all sorts of inconsistencies and crazy fans trying to make it all add up when the guys who create this shit don't give a shit or care to understand physics or logic. It's really simple. I've given examples of how things don't add up in Star Wars as well buts somehow your calculations which are nice and all aren't definitive proof since they aren't officially supported by the film.
I never asserted Trek beats Wars easily is based off a fact. It's my perspective which believes Trek wins just as your perspective believes Wars easily wins. The fun part is us both going on to prove which side we believe wins and the why. This will never play out and the irony is if this film ever did occur you'd have a few scriptwriters and a director could ignore and play this out any way he wanted and all of the evidence from the past films might not even be taken into account.
Nah, I disagree but I'll support my arguments with clips in our battlezone. I've purposely not provided one single shred of evidence in this way. And if I can't find the clip on YouTube I'll reference the time in the film in our battlezone.
It's all perspectives interpreting facts and reaching our own conclusions. I'll support my arguments and conclusions with evidence once this starts but I just wanted to vaguely support them here since this new mini debate started due to Nai's micro penis.
Inconsistencies mean it doesn't add up. You're trying to make it add up just shows how fool hearty that is.
Ok I guess if you really believe this I'll be screwed come battlezone time. 🙂
I agree but the level in which they have attained is less than Trek has. Trek continuously gets far better to in a relatively short amount of time compared to the snails progress that seems to take place in Star Wars.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
So let's recap what quanchi hasn't even begun to address to any coherent degree:1. Star Wars ships can cross their galaxy in hours, while it takes the Enterprise seven years to cross a portion of the Alpha Quadrant. This is a [b]massive
advantage. The speed disparity is such that:a) Star Trek has no hope of ever even launching an attack on Star Wars in any reasonable timeframe, or mapping out their galaxy to a sufficient extent to know what to attack in the first place.
b) Star Wars ships can strike anywhere at anytime. This would force Star Trek to disperse its fleet thin throughout all of its important planets, because it won't be able to move or even communicate fast enough to mobilize ships from other star systems.
So let's assume for a moment that they have even numbers of ships and planets - which is obviously not the case. Say 100 planets and 100 ships for Star Wars and Star Trek each. Since Star Wars doesn't have to worry about counterattacks, it can take 90 of them, target important and/or weak worlds in Star Trek, and then send all 90 at those particular targets at a time. Meanwhile, because Star Trek wouldn't be able to afford the days or weeks to send reinforcements to repel said quick attack, they'd have to put, say, 1 ship on every planet, or otherwise abandon a few and still end up spreading themselves thin. See the problem here? That's 90 ships concentrating attacks against planets with like 1 ship defending them, lawl.
2. The industry of Star Wars is superior by multiple orders of magnitude. It was said that the Federation would take years to recover the 46 or so ships they lost against the Borg Cube. Meanwhile, the Galactic Empire was able to construct to more than 50% completion a 900 kilometer diameter second Death Star, massing trillions of said ships the Federation lost, in secret, in the Outer Rim, away from all of its industrial bases.
Now consider the implications this has given that Star Trek will take decades if not centuries to mount any sort of assault. There's simply no way they could win a battle of attrition, not unless each of their ships can take out 100 billion Star Wars ones.
3. Star Wars is just far more massive. If we are only using the movies, we know that Dooku just casually mentions that "another ten thousand star systems" have joined their cause at a random board meeting. Hardly surprising, given that they've mapped out every star in the galaxy, and are constantly referred to as a galactic civilization. Meanwhile, the Federation has what - a few hundred planets? And most are incredibly sparsely populated, to the point where they're essentially isolated outposts.
The burden of proof has hence shifted on quanchi to suggest that Star Trek is not only superior mano a mano, but superior by like six orders of magnitude. Get on it.
4. Superweapons. Who cares about red matter? Not only would the weak-ass ship delivering it get shot down immediately, refer to the FTL speeds - it would take them decades to get anywhere. Not true for the Death Stars or Starkiller base - no, these can effectively genocide the Alpha Quadrant in a matter of weeks, and there's absolutely nothing Star Trek can do against them, not when they can move anywhere in the galaxy in hours and bust planets in seconds.
But let's say both sides really could kill planets at comparable rates - refer to the previous size distinction. Star Wars just has more room to lost planets, whereas destroying Vulcan alone made the Vulcans an endangered species. They win the war of attrition, sorry.
5. The firepower. The calculations have been made and analyzed, and no, quanchi saying "common sense" and sticking his fingers in his ear =/= a substantive rebuttal. A single imperial star destroyer could effortlessly take on the entire Federation starfleet and emerge with barely a scratch on its armor.
6. Planetary shields.
7. The suicidal tactics of Star Trek soldiers that allow redshirts in entrenched positions to get overwhelmed by Klingons charging with melee weaponry.
👆 [/B]
1. A). This is horrendous logic. Just as in warp speed if a ship shows up out of nowhere to attack the attack and combat takes place in real time. All of the battles with take place in real time and we are limited to the graph, ships, weapons shown in the films. Acting as if Star Wars won't attack any of the Starfleet or Trek forces is simply wrong. If Han Solo shows up out of nowhere he's susceptible to being attacked once he leaves hyperdrive in real time so once combat begins it isn't an advantage. The only advantage is they can travel faster not decimate the trek side before they can react. There's a finite number of ships, planets, forces here and the Trek side will meet Star Wars in real time combat wise.
B). Planetary defenses. We see how the portrayal was such that even a vastly superior ship to the Starfleet of that time deemed it necessary to seek out. That's despite the ease in which it took down multiple Klingons warbirds and federation ships. On screen from the latest previews we have thousands of smaller trek ships as well. How many shops do you think Star Wars has on film ?
Here's where your argument comes apart. You act as if they can't counterattack. They attack in real time so once they reach their destination they will have to deal with the forces contained therein. We don't see hundreds of worlds on the films so again another faulty premise.
2. Yes, the industry is greater but the problem solvability of Trek is superior and will counter. Star Wars seems relatively simplistic in terms of their approach. Bigger and more ships and bigger guns. Trek has weapons capable of transporting small red matter the size of a drop which can artificially create a black hole. Again we are going on the films only not the idea of what these universes are comprised of so another faulty premise.
3. Not if we take all of canon into account. We are not so who cares. We are going by the films only and the finite ships and weapons and recourses from each that's the data we reach our conclusions by.
4. It's the application of the red matter. Smaller and much more applications of this mega weapon when compared to the three mega stations which took years and required all kinds of massive numbers to create in the first place. We see in Rotj to move into target a decent s lint of time to tsar place just as we can surmise the draining of a star required a significant amount of time. Gives trek time.
5. Speculative nonsense IMO. You need to prove your claims not just give your best guesses without official confirmation backed up by on screen portrayals.
6. Black holes.
7. Klingons are a warrior those race unlike the majority of the red shirts but eho cares they are all on the same side for the purposes of this debate.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Key words at the time
Nope. The keywords being "best they have" and "insignificant, private vessel". Jango Fett on his Slave-I, which is tiny compared to a Star Destroyer, packs enough firepower to make the Enterprise look like a toy. This is a ship that, itself, is a toy compared to a Star Destroyer.
You see Trek films go hundreds of years from that point so acting as if it's the best ship or even comparable is quite frankly laughable but go in being you.
Urm. Nope. The Star Trek films are set between 2273 and 2387 (the latter being the future in the 2009 Star Trek film). And there is, quite frankly, nothing impressive happening in terms of technology in that time.
We have a simple mining vessel from the future so far beyond the Enterprise they need a black friggin hole and another futuristic ship the Jellyfish as well as the element of surprise to even the odds.
According to my logic, that means that pretty much luck on side of the protagonists was involved in order not to get destroyed by the Narada upon first contact (or later through the movie). According to your logic: "LOLz. Giant ship with 100 year technological advance gets pwned on the silver screen!!11" See the difference? 🙄
What's even worse asteroid friends are a huge problem for military grade ships from the empire which are much smaller and more maneuverable. Han Solo makes it clear how bad of an idea it was to enter the field and it's still a huge deal in Wars just as it is in Trek save you aren't comparing the more formidable ships.
Welcome to Quanchi-ignoring-context, Upteenth Episode:
The Imperial Fleet was cruising through that field over an extended period of time. The Executor doesn't even waste time with point defense firing to destroy asteroid, because of its shielding being so powerful. "Asteroids do not concern me, Admiral. I want that ship and not excuses.", as Vader happily proclaims when they enter the asteroid field. As the Sith Lord isn't exactly suicidal, the Executor itself was apparently never at risk of sustaining serious damage, despite of kilometer wide asteroids flying by.
That is different for the normal Star Destroyers. But still. We're talking about kilometer wide asteroids. The one that destroys the Star Destroyer in the movie has a diameter of roughly 60 meters and moves with at least 1 km/s. At that speed, the impact energy for a usual rock asteroid would be 1.3176e+14 joules. Which would be roughly the equivalent of all energy of a 30 kiloton thermonuclear weapon unleashed against the shields / structure in the fraction of a second. As Needa tells Vader right after that particular scene: "Considering the amount of damage we've sustained, they [edit: the Millenium Falcon] must have been destroyed." Which means that the shields were, apparently, not at 100 percent any longer.
1). Shielding ?? When ? Asteroids obliterate what they hit on a star destroyer, tie fighters, etc. lasers easily destroy the smaller ships in combat as well.
I've posted a scene, where you can see enemy fighters exploding harmlessly against shielding of capital ships. The star-fighters either don't have shields (TIEs) or just a minium shielding (most Rebel fighters). Or maybe you can just rewatch the opening sequence of "Revenge of the Sith"...
Rebutted.
In your wet fanboy dreams perhabs.
We see the greatest of the star destroyers go down on the goddamn silver screen.
Since you're so keen on ignoring context entirely: We also saw the Narada go down, the Jellyfish, the Vengeance, Borg Cubes, various Enterprise models and other space ships. I daresay, we've seen much more of Star Trek going down than of Star Wars. By your "logic" that means, that Star Wars obviously wins, right?
It laughably had its deflector shields taken down and then went down in relatively quick succession with a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller ship crashes into it.
Going by the trailers for the new movie, the Enterprise gets taken down by much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller ships just flying right through it. Double-standards much?
Trek has the more impressive shielding and their firepower is vastly superior since it actually tears through shielding with single attacks.
"Because I say so!" Evidence? "Nope! I have an opinion!"
I have cited the example of a star destroyer hitting the MF multiple times without any significant damage on a much smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller, smaller ship.
I have already explained why this example is utter nonsense. You ignored the real demonstration of firepower. Arguing out of ignorance means you're an ignoramus. Well done. Spock would be proud. 👆
Communication speed ?? In what ways did they demonstrate how effective this is ?
I've cut the diatribe of red herrings following this, in order to not make you even look a greater fool than you actually are. Vader videochats with the Emperor across the Galaxy. Ren speaks to Snoke, who is apparently also rather far away.
2) the Star Wars ships and stations have to get closer to attack. What ducking planet are you from in which Wars ships are invisible and don't even have to be in the same galaxy to attack ? Did you watch return if the ****ing Jedi ? Death Star seemed to take its goddamn time.
Did you watch the movie, where the unfinished space-station is orbiting Endor because it is protected by a planetary shield. Here's the big revelation for you: They have another quite mobile Death Star and Starkiller Base. And, well, the latter doesn't have to be in the same Galaxy to attack. 😗
3) red matter. I've already covered this. Both are highly susceptible to smaller ships. It's referenced in the goddamn movie. 3 years huh a d was it completed ? How much manpower did that take ?
You have not covered this and you again dodging the point because, gosh, you have no argument. 👆
Unlike you I've actually supported the on screen depictions while you've attempted to exaggerate any and all things Star Wars related. You're a fanboy. You've been telling me I'm not worth replying to for days so save your empty I'm done threats. See something through to the end you gutless pansy. You're a quitter. I suspect you've been this way your whole life while justifying your actions so you can sleep at night all the while taking the easy way out before you see anything through to the end.
There is no end debating with you, Quanchimon. You aren't even arguing. Just blowing mist and smoke in word form into the forum, somehow hoping that nobody sees it. You're a joke that nobody finds funny any longer.
False, we see smaller ships take out super star destroyers which don't have the firepower of the superior trek ships such as the Narada, Enterprise D, Vengeance, or the Borg Cube.
"Because I say so!" Evidence? "I don't need evidence! I have an opinion!"
Same old story, being the same...and old.
This is what I call another nationally recognized intelligent human being making the obvious choice, Trek. There are others but if you watch the video you can hear plenty of ignorant people say MF because they had no ****ing clue. So lasers are not lasers. You're an idiot but go ahead and prove it. You disgust me. Flaming from the worlds biggest quitter. Lasers aren't lasers. Not in Star Wars.
"I will happily gloss over the fact, that I've been caught in my attempt to introduce a logical fallacy as argument. I will keep arguing against on screen evidence, because reasons. I just suck. Blah Blah. Yada Yada. Troll troll."
Seriously. Go play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Originally posted by Nai
Nope. The keywords being "best they have" and "insignificant, private vessel". Jango Fett on his Slave-I, which is tiny compared to a Star Destroyer, packs enough firepower to make the Enterprise look like a toy. This is a ship that, itself, is a toy compared to a Star Destroyer.Urm. Nope. The Star Trek films are set between 2273 and 2387 (the latter being the future in the 2009 Star Trek film). And there is, quite frankly, nothing impressive happening in terms of technology in that time.
According to my logic, that means that pretty much luck on side of the protagonists was involved in order not to get destroyed by the Narada upon first contact (or later through the movie). According to your logic: "LOLz. Giant ship with 100 year technological advance gets pwned on the silver screen!!11" See the difference? 🙄
Welcome to Quanchi-ignoring-context, Upteenth Episode:
The Imperial Fleet was cruising through that field over an extended period of time. The Executor doesn't even waste time with point defense firing to destroy asteroid, because of its shielding being so powerful. "Asteroids do not concern me, Admiral. I want that ship and not excuses.", as Vader happily proclaims when they enter the asteroid field. As the Sith Lord isn't exactly suicidal, the Executor itself was apparently never at risk of sustaining serious damage, despite of kilometer wide asteroids flying by.That is different for the normal Star Destroyers. But still. We're talking about kilometer wide asteroids. The one that destroys the Star Destroyer in the movie has a diameter of roughly 60 meters and moves with at least 1 km/s. At that speed, the impact energy for a usual rock asteroid would be 1.3176e+14 joules. Which would be roughly the equivalent of all energy of a 30 kiloton thermonuclear weapon unleashed against the shields / structure in the fraction of a second. As Needa tells Vader right after that particular scene: "Considering the amount of damage we've sustained, they [edit: the Millenium Falcon] must have been destroyed." Which means that the shields were, apparently, not at 100 percent any longer.
I've posted a scene, where you can see enemy fighters exploding harmlessly against shielding of capital ships. The star-fighters either don't have shields (TIEs) or just a minium shielding (most Rebel fighters). Or maybe you can just rewatch the opening sequence of "Revenge of the Sith"...
In your wet fanboy dreams perhabs.
Since you're so keen on ignoring context entirely: We also saw the Narada go down, the Jellyfish, the Vengeance, Borg Cubes, various Enterprise models and other space ships. I daresay, we've seen much more of Star Trek going down than of Star Wars. By your "logic" that means, that Star Wars obviously wins, right?
Going by the trailers for the new movie, the Enterprise gets taken down by much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much smaller ships just flying right through it. Double-standards much?
"Because I say so!" Evidence? "Nope! I have an opinion!"
I have already explained why this example is utter nonsense. You ignored the real demonstration of firepower. Arguing out of ignorance means you're an ignoramus. Well done. Spock would be proud. 👆
I've cut the diatribe of red herrings following this, in order to not make you even look a greater fool than you actually are. Vader videochats with the Emperor across the Galaxy. Ren speaks to Snoke, who is apparently also rather far away.
Did you watch the movie, where the unfinished space-station is orbiting Endor because it is protected by a planetary shield. Here's the big revelation for you: They have another quite mobile Death Star and Starkiller Base. And, well, the latter doesn't have to be in the same Galaxy to attack. 😗
You have not covered this and you again dodging the point because, gosh, you have no argument. 👆
There is no end debating with you, Quanchimon. You aren't even arguing. Just blowing mist and smoke in word form into the forum, somehow hoping that nobody sees it. You're a joke that nobody finds funny any longer.
"Because I say so!" Evidence? "I don't need evidence! I have an opinion!"
Same old story, being the same...and old."I will happily gloss over the fact, that I've been caught in my attempt to introduce a logical fallacy as argument. I will keep arguing against on screen evidence, because reasons. I just suck. Blah Blah. Yada Yada. Troll troll."
Seriously. Go play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Yes, we see a simple mining vessel is far more powerful. The USS Vengeance also has a significant upgrade. 2 times the size and 3 times the speed. So even in the same time period we see how quickly they progress in a ship designed by Khan.
Difference is we see much weaker rebel ships have the power to straight up down the executor. They didn't need the executor to stop attacking and have to also attack with a plot device.
Key words imperial fleet. If we take the Starfleet in a coordinated fashion they could do the same. We see how much of a struggle that even MF and the tie fighters had.
Vader wanted results. Way to ignore the context. He wanted results and didn't want to hear about excuses. We see an asteroid destroy a structure in the star destroyer. Shields didn't look impressive my exaggeratory mentally challenged friend.
We later see a much smaller ship easily down the proud and overrated Executor. Again with the unprovable numbers to support your fanboyism. It's awful and we see how weak the ships are. No concrete proof just speculation, eh ? You make baseless claims because you can't prove them and try to assign real world logic to a reality in which the force exists. 😂
Post the clip again or reference the time stamp in the film.
You are delusional.
Yes, but the difference is the Narada goes down to enemy fire and a black hole. The executor is decimated by smaller ships with firepower and a crash. Vengeance has all 72 torpedoes go off aboard without the shielding protecting the inside and it still doesn't explode apart. The context is entirely different when comparing those situations to the Executor.
Hundreds if not thousands of much smaller ships not just one. It's like saying 1 guy took you out and then saying it's the same thing when hundreds take one guy out. Context.
We see the shields easily taken out when attacked by a much smaller and less powerful ship but that isn't the case in Trek.
False. You lied when the dialogue makes it clear one more shot and they are done for. They were still firing. You continue to lie but this thread isn't the first time nor the last you'll blatantly lie to make Star Wars look better than it is.
What good did it serve ? Did Ren secure the prisoner ? Apparently the security is so lax one untrained in the force woman can easily escape the Stormtroopers and later trounce Kylo Ren.
So you admit it takes time for that Death Star. The other one on screen is highly weak to smaller ships and needs its fair share of Tie fighters to defend it from such an assault. Trek now has thousands of tiny ships.
😂
Starkiller base takes time and requires stars to power it up. This again takes time which means it can't fire and is susceptible to being attacked just like in the film. We see the rebels succeed due to the time they had. Han Solo and Finn just winged it and still came out on top. This fantasy that the starkiller or any of these other mega weapons take all of Trek out easily without being attacked needs to die.
We have an exploitable weakness in spades when in the film 30 rebel ships were enough to best the imperials tie fighter defenses of this station with Vader present as well.
I am citing film depictions as my evidence. You're ignoring them and simply restating your silly claims., they are baseless and you're that insecure guy beating his chest but really you're terrified and won't see this debate through because you're a dishonest and biased poster.
We see them take out superior ships and shielding on screen. We see a much weaker ship in the MF handle the star destroyers attacks. The enterprise can't handle the Narada or the Vengeances attacks without taking significant damage.
Thanks for confessing yourself guilty of these crimes. Now attempt to atone for your sins.
You never had any intention of seeing this through and your responses get weaker each and every time. You ignore on screen evidence and continue to restate your baseless claims. Grow up.