Dreadnought vs Star Destroyer

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Then why don't you stop just tossing away people's arguments because they're "unproven" and "it's just fiction", if you don't want other people to do the same thing to yours?

How about you try engaging with arguments by detailing [b]why they're wrong, rather than using vague catchphrases like "nerd math" that make you sound like some midwestern inbred redneck? [/B]

Nerd math makes me sound like a Midwestern inbred ? Don't go getting your panties in a bunch I am trying to save you from out thinking this stuff. I have been consistent Nai hasn't. That's the point. Now if you want to continue debating the topic we can proceed but you seem to throw your hands up and quit this debate every other post. Make up your mind already don't be live all those Midwestern rednecks who don't see anything through to the end.

Originally posted by Tondemonai
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but are you accusing me of making baseless claims? My good sir, I will have you know that all my statements have been posted on this thread after thurough research and education of the matter, confirmation of tangibility, and a repeat of the process.

Jesus Christ, it's like you don't grasp even the elementary concepts of debating. We know you think these arguments are conjecture and "unknown variables". But you have to back these accusations up rather than just asserting them. Like, this concept of "justify your argument" is something you should've been doing on homework assignments from elementary school, for f*ck's sake.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Jesus Christ, it's like you don't grasp even the elementary concepts of debating. We know you think these arguments are conjecture and "unknown variables". But [b]you have to back these accusations up rather than just asserting them. Like, this concept of "justify your argument" is something you should've been doing on homework assignments from elementary school, for f*ck's sake. [/B]

This is how it must be. The Empire became this… ugly, inelegant machine. Crude and inefficient. We needed to be broken into pieces. We needed to get rid of those who want to see that old machine churning ineluctably forward. It’s time for something better. Something new. An Empire worthy of the galaxy it will rule.

I am going to humiliate the empire even further than the new canon already has done. Prepare yourself Ellimist because if you think I won't back up my claims you're going to get ****ed in the ass without lube come December.

Originally posted by Tondemonai
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

All that's needed

Once again, if you haven't looked at this, it's all that's needed to close this debate.

Quanchi thinks that's "nerd math" and doesn't count. He literally wants to live in the Stone Age.

Well we at least agree on that. Have we ever been on the same side of a debate on here before?

Heck, even Beefy and I are on the same side in this thread, lmfao.

Originally posted by Tondemonai
Once again, if you haven't looked at this, it's all that's needed to close this debate.

He also says millions of Star Wars ships which is true but there are millions of Borg cubes as well and not only that they can adapt to wars weapons, assimilate them and add them to the collective. But this is supposed to be just the Vengeance vs a Destroyer.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Quanchi thinks that's "nerd math" and doesn't count. He literally wants to live in the Stone Age.

Ironic you use the Stone Age as Star Wars seems stuck in the same kind of fictional progression while Trek grows leaps and bounds in terms of progression. Wars is the Stone Age not Trek. It's the future, amigo.

This thread is about Dreadnaught vs ISD, nothing else. That is why it is the only thing needed. Anything else is irrelevant and doesn't belong here, because the only things being discussed are the standard ISD and the Dreadnaught class. If you have something that is relevant, like comparisons of very similar ships such as what I provided which you dismiss out of blatant bias, then feel free to continue your posts. Otherwise, stop wasting the time of everyone that's involved in this thread.

Originally posted by Tondemonai
This thread is about Dreadnaught vs ISD, nothing else. That is why it is the only thing needed. Anything else is irrelevant and doesn't belong here, because the only things being discussed are the standard ISD and the Dreadnaught class. If you have something that is relevant, like comparisons of very similar ships such as what I provided which you dismiss out of blatant bias, then feel free to continue your posts. Otherwise, stop wasting the time of everyone that's involved in this thread.

I've already said the lack of maneuverability is what costs the Star Destroyer here. We see the damage the Dreadnought is capable of in mere seconds of the enterprise. We have seen how easy it is to bring down the super star destroyer deflectors shields which is the key. This is called relevance to the debate at hand. Glad to hear you concede the rest. Oh how the biased posters knees buckle when their so called evidence is subjedted to cross examination.

The issue is that you clearly are so biased that you ignore numbers stated in official sourcebooks when they're not in your favor. If you are so biased that you refuse to accept numbers from these sourcebooks just to help your case, then that's just sad

Originally posted by Tondemonai
The issue is that you clearly are so biased that you ignore numbers stated in official sourcebooks when they're not in your favor. If you are so biased that you refuse to accept numbers from these sourcebooks just to help your case, then that's just sad

Then why do you claim that the examples provided by Wong are invalid and biased when everything he states and lists are pulled directly out of The Next Generation Source Book and Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections? What's so hard to accept about you being wrong here?

Originally posted by Tondemonai
Then why do you claim that the examples provided by Wong are invalid and biased when everything he states and lists are pulled directly out of The Next Generation Source Book and Star Wars Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections? What's so hard to accept about you being wrong here?

Originally posted by quanchi112
That he left out certain characters in order to slant this in Wars favor. I'd also like to see the sources verified I'm not going to take the word of a biased fanatic without verifying the numbers. Numbers alone don't decide this debate I do hope you grasp that.

I do acknowledge that. It's the fact that we're comparing (in some cases) numbers in the millions to two (and lower) digit numbers. You can't rationally ignore gaps like that. I did some further digging, and found that his calculations and provided numbers were either exact or not far from it.

Wong stated that an Acclimator Troop Transport (he was incorrect about this. While it's used for troop transport more than anything else, it's labeled as an assault ship, not troop transport) has a reactor power of 200 trillion gigawatts. This is accurate to what is stated, after expanding from scientific notation of 2x10^23. Wong also stated that it's shield max heat dissipation was 70 trillion gigawatts. Again, correct after the same process of expanding 7x10^22. All of his statements related to the Acclimator were mathematically correct.

As for the Enterprise D statements, he correctly stated that the output of one emitter was 5.1 megawatts. He was incorrect, however, on his statement of 64 megatonnes being the max theoretical explosive yield of a Photon Torpedo. I found that (assuming 100% efficiency in detonation) it would theoretically be 95.73 megatons, but he wasn't far off, and this is 100% efficiency, which is highly unlikely to ever happen. Links backing my statements: https://cudebi.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/franchise-star-trek-tng-technical-manual1.pdf http://www.st-v-sw.net/Obsidian/Martin/photontorpedo.htm

Dismiss this if you like, but it's all legitimate, and should be dispositive.

Both tech manuals should not be used since they contradict on panel showings. ST ships have done things like cause solar flares with their engines, move neutron star fragments, and destroy a percentage of a planets surface in one volley.

Bumped so I do not forget about Nai and his worthlessness.

Originally posted by Tondemonai
I do acknowledge that. It's the fact that we're comparing (in some cases) numbers in the millions to two (and lower) digit numbers. You can't rationally ignore gaps like that. I did some further digging, and found that his calculations and provided numbers were either exact or not far from it.

Wong stated that an Acclimator Troop Transport (he was incorrect about this. While it's used for troop transport more than anything else, it's labeled as an assault ship, not troop transport) has a reactor power of 200 trillion gigawatts. This is accurate to what is stated, after expanding from scientific notation of 2x10^23. Wong also stated that it's shield max heat dissipation was 70 trillion gigawatts. Again, correct after the same process of expanding 7x10^22. All of his statements related to the Acclimator were mathematically correct.

As for the Enterprise D statements, he correctly stated that the output of one emitter was 5.1 megawatts. He was incorrect, however, on his statement of 64 megatonnes being the max theoretical explosive yield of a Photon Torpedo. I found that (assuming 100% efficiency in detonation) it would theoretically be 95.73 megatons, but he wasn't far off, and this is 100% efficiency, which is highly unlikely to ever happen. Links backing my statements: https://cudebi.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/franchise-star-trek-tng-technical-manual1.pdf http://www.st-v-sw.net/Obsidian/Martin/photontorpedo.htm

Dismiss this if you like, but it's all legitimate, and should be dispositive.