I now know what it feels like...

[Batman]

FTL simply does not render you invisible, unless you agree that moving at FTL means light cannot touch you, because you're too fast. Consider the light emitted by a star; can you draw a line at some point and say, the light is not here, or the light stops here? Of course not.
Therefore, even if you are moving FTL, you are passing through light, in the same manner that, if you were phased, you would still be passing through matter.

All of which is correct and none of which is relevant. Wether or not the target can see you does not matter for targetting purposes if you arrive at your target before the light reflected off of you does.

Our mystery contestant has claimed that FTL combat would leave an ISD's crew clueless as to where the attacks are coming from, and incapable of response.

Which you confirmed as you claim that the light boucing off the Fed FTL ships would give them away which is physically impossible.

I'm still puzzled. So you're saying the Trek bozo is right?

WRT targetting an FTL target using c speed sensors, yes.

The moment you fire, you are emitting a non-FTL energy beam. Since it is likely you're not snuggled up alongside the ISD, you're spotted.

Using c speed sensors, long after you're gone.

As it would be highly ineffective to blip about and fire from totally random positions 'because you can't see us, nyah, nyah', you would be firing from positions that can be predicted.

Whatever for? Wether you can see me or not, this is space. I can attack from wherever damn well I want.

Simple logic. If the target is moving faster than you can possibly react, you lead it and fire where it's going to be.

Assuming you are capable of effectively tracking it in the first place. Which, with c speed sensors vs an FTL target, you're not.

By those lights, all warp-speed combat in the Trek universe MUST be executed at maximum speeds, because you wouldn't want an opponent to gain an edge by going one warp factor faster than you, right?

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

You established that superiority is derived from warp speed.

I did?

Therefore, if you and your opponent are capable of Warp Six, entering a fight at Warp Four cedes an advantage.

And this discounts the possibility of the enemy also moving at Warp Four how?

Are you proposing that a vehicle moving faster than light cannot be seen because light itself can never actually catch up with it?

Not before they arrive at the observers location, no.

Thank you for the clarification.
In other words, if an object is at rest, moves at FTL, and resumes an at-rest position, an observer will, in fact, SEE the object when it is at rest, but not necessarily while it is in transit.

You will see the object in transit, too. But not WHILE it is in transit, but later.

The model that the Trek person proposed is non-stop FTL maneuvering, which is ridiculous for a combat model. It'd be like an SR-71 trying to conduct a dogfight with an F-18/A, or worse, a Cessna.

I never said he was right. Warp strafing is impossble even from straight line flight. I'm merely up against your idea that you can easily target ships at Warp from rest, especiallly with c speed sensors.

SPEED != MANEUVERABILITY.

No kidding.

Regardless, it'd really be amusing to see a starship travelling at warp speeds attempt a tight circle around an ISD.

Entirely possible, as Warp factors below 1 are canon. What that would avail the Trek ship is everyone's guess, of course.
*SNIPPY*
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

At Warp 1, it takes 1.34 seconds to traverse those same 400,000 km. Warp 1 is defined as the speed of light, therefore 'warp speeds below Warp 1' are sublight speeds. You can't have it both ways.

Of course Warp factors below one are STL. They do, however, make it technically possible to fly a tight circle around an ISD at 'Warp' speed.

It seems you're the one who hasn't got a clue about scale, unless you're establishing effective phaser ranges at multiples of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

How would I be doing that?

You're hit once. You immediately initiate continous, suppressing fire against the probable attack vector used by your enemy.

That one hit is NEVER EVER going to happen in the first place. The Imperials ability to make consecutive hits is completely up for grabs as they IMN have NEVER engaged FTL targets.

Please show me your calculations that show the odds are as you state, or even reasonably close to your example.

Assume one square ls. Assume Warp 1. Time:1 s. Number of hits needed to connect with a 500x100m target: 1.8e12. Gets lots worse with larger area and higher Warp factors.

Number of hydrogen atoms in the universe squared, my ass.

The concept of exaggeration is apparently foreign to you.

IMN? In My Nerdiness?

Comedian, aren't we? IMHO, asshole.

Of course it can. The propability of it being, however, is infinitesimally low.

Then don't make absurd blanket claims.

:rolleyes: With chances of less than one in a trillion, 'never ever gonna happen' quite covers it. Well, for reasonable people.

If turbolasers fired single beams, you might have a point. However, turbolaser fire consists of pulsed fire, and even travelling at FTL, you're going to be hard-pressed to dodge continuous fire.

When the area your in is ls across? Oh please.
You have no clue of the idea of scale, have you.

God damn, it'd be easier to understand you if you could type.
Is that, '... when the area you are in is (light years) across'? L's? Leagues? Lizard-tails?

That's funny. Everybody ELSE here understands that ls stands for light second(s)'.

Are you now postulating that a Federation starship can attack from light years away? What are you smoking?

I'd brush up on my abbreviations if I were you.

You seem to think that there is a significantly large number of effective attack vectors for the starship to fire from, when this is simply not true.

Yes it is. Infinite, to be exact. We're in space you know.

TNG is non-canon, and there ARE canon examples of Warp combat. Against other Warp targets with relative velocities being seriously STL

Or are you saying the 'TNG Technical Manual' is non-canon?

TM.

Thus, you've just proven my point about maneuverability. Two ships, traveling at warp, would maneuver the same, and combat is possible. A starship, moving at warp, attempting repeated attacks on an ISD, moving at sub-light speeds, is ridiculous.

I never said it was.

Why is something Okuda wrote non-canon? Are you confusing the TNG Technical Manual with the TOS Technical Manual, or even Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise?

Because the ONLY canon were ST is concerned is what's seen on screen, and possibly a pair of VOY novels Nothing else.

Where did you get this Trektard claim from?

Paramount. The ones who own Star Trek, you know.

As Sternbach & Okuda state in their introduction, "It's closely based on source material we've developed in conjunction with writers and producers in our role as technical consultants in the series." (Though, in all fairness, they do indicate it is not to be taken as a straitjacket.)

So?

Still, if the TNG Tech Manual is non-canon, then the Enterprise really runs off of peanut butter and anti-peanut butter, because Okuda is talking out of his ass.

Asstard. MA/AM is canon as it is stated on the actual show.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is non-canon, because it reiterates material developed for the Tech Manual,

Correct. therefore, dilithium crystals are really Folger's Crystals, and nobody noticed the switch.

Are you TRYING to be a moron? Dilithium crystals are stated on the show.

What is the basis for this claim?

You claimed Star Trek phasers were in the terawatt range. I disputed that based on the TNG Technical Manual,

Which, for the nth time, has no canonicity whatsoever,

and asked where you got your information, and you seem to think I'm obligated to give you proof for YOUR claim?

Have you ever bothered reading the main site? TW is calculated from effects on-screen.

Neither startrek.com nor the TM has any canonicity whatsoever.
The main site in this context, btw, is www.stardestroyer.net

Still wondering where you're pulling this claim out of. You're now saying that Paramount's own site is non-canon?

Yes. As per Paramounts own canonicity policy, nothing outside the actual series' is canon.

(Note that Mike has cited the TNG:TM and the ST Encyclopedia in his Technology comparison, therefore, if it's not canon, it's a surprise to more than me.)

Note that Mike made that site eons ago and hasn't updated since. But hey, take it up with him.

[Darth Servo]

response part 2.

And Grievous is a cyborg, so he doesn't count.

He's far better than the brainless borg cyborgs in Trek.

Data actually has biological components so he is a cyborg too and thus "doesn't count" by this tard's reasoning.

Numbers are meaningless when you're talking tech level. Germany had more zeppelins than any other country in WW1, but their technological edge vanished (forever) with the advent of a bi-plane that could climb higher than 15,000 feet.

Not forever. Just for the rest of WW1. In WW2, they had BETTER tanks than anyone else and JETS that NO ONE else had yet still lost to the superior numbers the allies could throw at them.

If one airplane could take out a whole fleet of zeppelins, then the numbers become meaningless in the face of the higher tech.

Too bad for this idiot that the Empire has the Feds on BOTH counts. All of his examples of "better Fed tech" have been useless wasteful consumer items that don't mean jack in a war while SW superior tech just HAPPENS to be in shields, weapons, FTL propultion, etc.

Again, this is opinion, which is not to be confused with fact.

No. Its fact based on observation of greated ACHIEVENEMTS, like say, blowing up a planet while Fed ships have trouble with asteroids.

The Death Star survived the Alderaan explosion without a scratch while borg cubes got TOASTED by the 8472 planetary blast.

Saying "I like SW more" over and over does not make it better.

It doesn't work for the Trek side anymore than for the SW side. Every one of his examples of superior Trek tech is supported by nothing but meaningless technobabble and "I think its cooler"

It makes it more preferable to *you*. I like the SW tech a lot too,

Yet he seems to have severe amnesia of its reatest accomplishments when it comes time to compare it with Trek tech.

but that's not the issue here, the issue is which is more advanced. And who we like more is not a factor in that. Or ought not to be.

And the one with the more powerful guns is usually the one who is more advanced, not the one with the flashiest toys.

Sisyphus pushed the rock up a hill for all eternity, but that wasn't particularly significant either. Perserverance is a laudable trait; however, deft arguments would serve you better here.

Good advice. Why don't you take it instead of putting the flashiest from Trek against the most mundane of SW and trying to declare that a victory?

In the end this is all entirely pointless, and mostly boils down to a popularity contest.

This AFTER he said that was NOT what this discussion was about.

I think we would agree that we both prefer Star Wars; but your disdain of Trek's tech seems to stem more from a dislike of Trek than from any salient argument of why SW has a higher tech level. To me, as long as both respective shows/movies use their tech creatively, it's all fun.

Someone who rants about the other guy stayhing on topic should no so quickly run off the relevant road himself.

[Nick Lancaster]

FTL simply does not render you invisible, unless you agree that moving at FTL means light cannot touch you, because you're too fast. Consider the light emitted by a star; can you draw a line at some point and say, the light is not here, or the light stops here? Of course not.
Therefore, even if you are moving FTL, you are passing through light, in the same manner that, if you were phased, you would still be passing through matter.

All of which is correct and none of which is relevant. Wether or not the target can see you does not matter for targetting purposes if you arrive at your target before the light reflected off of you does.

Try again. You're essentially saying that if I know your starting position and your direction of movement, that I cannot accurately predict your destination, despite the limiting factor of combat and effective positions. That is, there are a finite number of positions where a starship both brings maximum weapons to bear and has the greatest possible effect on a successful hit.

So while it is a given that you cannot fire ten yards behind a clay pigeon and expect it to burst, you can anticipate where the clay pigeon will be, and fire on that spot.

Yet you keep insisting this is impossible.

Our mystery contestant has claimed that FTL combat would leave an ISD's crew clueless as to where the attacks are coming from, and incapable of response.

Which you confirmed as you claim that the light boucing off the Fed FTL ships would give them away which is physically impossible.

Idiot. All I said was that the light would nonetheless reflect off the hull and give an indication of their position. If I'm wrong, of course, then so is the premise from the mystery contestant, and you're insisting he's right because I'm wrong.

I'm still puzzled. So you're saying the Trek bozo is right?

WRT targetting an FTL target using c speed sensors, yes.

WRT? Expand, please. With Relative Toast? With Ridiculous Tactics?

The moment you fire, you are emitting a non-FTL energy beam. Since it is likely you're not snuggled up alongside the ISD, you're spotted.

Using c speed sensors, long after you're gone.

Irrelevant. You're adhering to the ridiculous Trek assertion that they dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee. I have already explained why FTL vs. STL combat is a fallacy. (You have only defended FTL vs. FTL, suggesting that their speed relative to one another is STL.)

As it would be highly ineffective to blip about and fire from totally random positions 'because you can't see us, nyah, nyah', you would be firing from positions that can be predicted.

Whatever for? Wether you can see me or not, this is space. I can attack from wherever damn well I want.

And your movement is still confined by the arc of fire of your weapons and your intended targets. 'Wherever damn well I want,' is irrelevant. Why does this concept elude you?

Simple logic. If the target is moving faster than you can possibly react, you lead it and fire where it's going to be.

Assuming you are capable of effectively tracking it in the first place. Which, with c speed sensors vs an FTL target, you're not.

What, SW people can't think? Weapons fire comes from x direction. A moment later, it comes from y direction. Do you think someone MIGHT be able to determine a direction-of-travel for the attacking ship? Are you using truly random approaches on each pass?

Otherwise, by thinking, a reasonable attempt at return fire can be made, rather than this sitting around dumbfounded in the classic Trek-is-Superior scenario. Not to mention which, it's apparently only in Trek where you have to use sensors for everything.

By those lights, all warp-speed combat in the Trek universe MUST be executed at maximum speeds, because you wouldn't want an opponent to gain an edge by going one warp factor faster than you, right?

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

No? You're the one who keeps insisting warp speed grants superior combat effectiveness. Therefore, if you can move faster than your opponent, you can beat them. Thus, if you can go Warp 5 instead of Warp 4, you are superior. Why, then, would you even consider entering combat at less than maximum warp?

You established that superiority is derived from warp speed.

I did?

Yes, you did.

Therefore, if you and your opponent are capable of Warp Six, entering a fight at Warp Four cedes an advantage.

And this discounts the possibility of the enemy also moving at Warp Four how?

Circular argument. Why would they cede their advantage? If faster = superior, why go slower on either side?

You will see the object in transit, too. But not WHILE it is in transit, but later.

Even better, because that gives you an indication of the attacking ship's vector. I may not have much hope of hitting you, but I'm damn well not going to sit on my thumbs and cry, 'Waaaaaah! Mommy, the Federation ship is going too fast for me!'

I never said he was right. Warp strafing is impossble even from straight line flight. I'm merely up against your idea that you can easily target ships at Warp from rest, especiallly with c speed sensors.

If he's not right, why the fuck are you defending his faulty premise?

Of course Warp factors below one are STL. They do, however, make it technically possible to fly a tight circle around an ISD at 'Warp' speed.

Still bullshit. If you're going even a quarter of lightspeed, that's roughly 45,000 miles per second. You're not circling anything. You don't seem to be aware that the faster you go, the wider your turns are. This isn't Grand Turismo 4 where you can drift around corners.

How would I be doing that?

By insisting on Warp/FTL combat. So, at Warp 1, one second after you fire, you are 400,000 km away. The proposed combat scenario has a starship flitting around like a snub fighter, maintaining a constant rate of fire, when this is patently ridiculous.

Assume one square ls. Assume Warp 1. Time:1 s. Number of hits needed to connect with a 500x100m target: 1.8e12. Gets lots worse with larger area and higher Warp factors.

I have no idea what you mean by ls. Light year? Why are you assuming this broad combat range, unless you are also assuming effective weapons ranges to match?

Where are you getting these figures? You're still throwing meaningless numbers around.

The concept of exaggeration is apparently foreign to you.

Exaggeration is unwarranted when presenting mathematical data.

Comedian, aren't we? IMHO, asshole.

IMN = what, then? In My Nowledge?

If you can't type, it's not my problem, pendejo.

:rolleyes: With chances of less than one in a trillion, 'never ever gonna happen' quite covers it. Well, for reasonable people.

Weren't you exaggerating? Folks still get hit by lightning, win lotteries, and hit holes in one.

God damn, it'd be easier to understand you if you could type.
Is that, '... when the area you are in is (light years) across'? L's? Leagues? Lizard-tails?

That's funny. Everybody ELSE here understands that ls stands for light second(s)'.

They do? Hell of an assumption on your part, Holmes.

Fine. Brush up on your nomenclature. I believe most publications would have put periods in for clarity, hence, l.s.
What, did you use Hitchhikers' Guide as your physics textbook? 'Space is really big ...'?

Your 'infinite' area is sharply reduced by your arc-of-fire and your intended target. If I want to punch you in the nose, I generally don't approach from behind you.

Space being infinite does not translate as 'infinite paths to all objects', any more than I can dig a tunnel to China.
Then why are you wasting my time defending that scenario?
Then there's absolutely no point in ever debating Trek issues, because Braga can invalidate it next episode.
The diagrams and blueprints published in the technical manual are from the same gentlemen who design what you see on the screen. Therefore, the Technical Manual is canon.
The TNG Technical Manual becomes non-canon only if it is contradicted. Since you have affirmed it is powered by M/A reactions and uses dilithium crystals, you have not proven that it is incorrect.
So, Mike Wong is an authority on Star Trek, but one of the lead designers of the show is talking out of his ass?
I would consider a reference derived from the materials used by the writers of the series to be 'within the series'. The Encylopedia, being based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'. The Chronology, based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'.

I don't have to. You're the person whining about TNG:TM/Encyclopedia being non-canon.

[Batman]

Try again. You're essentially saying that if I know your starting position and your direction of movement,

Which need not be constant

that I cannot accurately predict your destination, despite the limiting factor of combat and effective positions.
That is, there are a finite number of positions where a starship both brings maximum weapons to bear and has the greatest possible effect on a successful hit.

No there aren't. I can attack from wherever the hell I want. This is space.
IF I want to attack a specific subsystem on the target (which is not a given), I'm limited to the hemisphere facing that but that's all.

Yet you keep insisting this is impossible.

No, I keep insisting you can't reliably target an FTL target with c speed sensors. And you can't.

Idiot. All I said was that the light would nonetheless reflect off the hull and give an indication of their position.

An information that will reach you AFTER the target does.

WRT? Expand, please. With Relative Toast? With Ridiculous Tactics?

With regards to. I'd brush up on my acronyms, or at least be polite when asking for clarification.

Irrelevant. You're adhering to the ridiculous Trek assertion that they dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

No, I'm adhering to the assertion that knowing where the target was 10 seconds ago when it is no longer there, especially when the target is moving at multiples of c.

I have already explained why FTL vs. STL combat is a fallacy. (You have only defended FTL vs. FTL, suggesting that their speed relative to one another is STL.)

Hello? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I AGREE that Warp strafing, whatever fashion doesn't work. But neither does your counter.

Whatever for? Wether you can see me or not, this is space. I can attack from wherever damn well I want.

And your movement is still confined by the arc of fire of your weapons and your intended targets.

NO IT IS NOT. Even with fixed axis weapons I can attack from wherever the hell I want.
Imagine a sphere. The target is at the center of the sphere. Now what pray tell keeps me from attacking from any point of that sphere? All I have to do is turn my ship in the target's direction, get withing weapon range, and let loose.

'Wherever damn well I want,' is irrelevant. Why does this concept elude you?

Because you're wrong.

What, SW people can't think? Weapons fire comes from x direction. A moment later, it comes from y direction. Do you think someone MIGHT be able to determine a direction-of-travel for the attacking ship? Are you using truly random approaches on each pass?

Why the hell not? We're talking Trek captains here so it's possible they WON'T but it is entirely possible.
Furthermore, even if the ship is using the same fucking approach every fucking time all he has to do to throw off your prediction is change speed...

Otherwise, by thinking, a reasonable attempt at return fire can be made, rather than this sitting around dumbfounded in the classic Trek-is-Superior scenario. Not to mention which, it's apparently only in Trek where you have to use sensors for everything.

By all means explain to me how you target a ship without sensors. You can try to make an educated guess as to where it'll be next once you have detected it (with sensors, I might add), but that's all it is-a guess.

You established that superiority is derived from warp speed.

I did?

Yes, you did.

Urm, might pointing out where, or at least in what way I stated Warp to be superior? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Therefore, if you and your opponent are capable of Warp Six, entering a fight at Warp Four cedes an advantage.

And this discounts the possibility of the enemy also moving at Warp Four how?

Circular argument. Why would they cede their advantage? If faster = superior, why go slower on either side?

Slower Warp drive, battle damage, one of those pesky Warp-speed reducing phenomena, fuel constraints etc for the target.
If your target goes Warp Four, going Warp Six means you'll zip by way to fast to engage for the attacker.

Even better, because that gives you an indication of the attacking ship's vector. I may not have much hope of hitting you, but I'm damn well not going to sit on my thumbs and cry, 'Waaaaaah! Mommy, the Federation ship is going too fast for me!'

Nick, all I was ever getting at is that you don't have much hope of hitting.

The model that the Trek person proposed is non-stop FTL maneuvering, which is ridiculous for a combat model. It'd be like an SR-71 trying to conduct a dogfight with an F-18/A, or worse, a Cessna.

I never said he was right. Warp strafing is impossble even from straight line flight. I'm merely up against your idea that you can easily target ships at Warp from rest, especiallly with c speed sensors.

If he's not right, why the fuck are you defending his faulty premise?

I am not defending his premise. I'm attacking your counter. Valen I mean I have stated Warp strafing doesn't work how many times now?

At Warp 1, it takes 1.34 seconds to traverse those same 400,000 km. Warp 1 is defined as the speed of light, therefore 'warp speeds below Warp 1' are sublight speeds. You can't have it both ways.

Of course Warp factors below one are STL. They do, however, make it technically possible to fly a tight circle around an ISD at 'Warp' speed.

Still bullshit. If you're going even a quarter of lightspeed, that's roughly 45,000 miles per second. You're not circling anything. You don't seem to be aware that the faster you go, the wider your turns are.

1.Turns do NOT neccessarily get wider the faster you are.
2.Who said anything about 1/4 c? There are Warp factors below one and therefore STL, there's no known lower limit for how low fractional Warp factors go, so who's to say that they can't do it at 20 kph?

By insisting on Warp/FTL combat. So, at Warp 1, one second after you fire, you are 400,000 km away. The proposed combat scenario has a starship flitting around like a snub fighter, maintaining a constant rate of fire, when this is patently ridiculous.

When exactly have I ever said that scenario works, pray tell?

Please show me your calculations that show the odds are as you state, or even reasonably close to your example.

Assume one square ls. Assume Warp 1. Time:1 s. Number of hits needed to connect with a 500x100m target: 1.8e12. Gets lots worse with larger area and higher Warp factors.

I have no idea what you mean by ls. Light year? Why are you assuming this broad combat range, unless you are also assuming effective weapons ranges to match?

Reread my last post. Light second you imbecile.

Where are you getting these figures? You're still throwing meaningless numbers around.

At least I have some. YOUR numbers of TL accurracy against c/FTL targets are?

Number of hydrogen atoms in the universe squared, my ass.

The concept of exaggeration is apparently foreign to you.

Exaggeration is unwarranted when presenting mathematical data.

Excuse me. I didn't realize I was writing my doctorate thesis here :rolleyes:

IMN? In My Nerdiness?

Comedian, aren't we? IMHO, asshole.

IMN = what, then? In My Nowledge?

It was a TYPO, fucktard.

Then don't make absurd blanket claims.

:rolleyes: With chances of less than one in a trillion, 'never ever gonna happen' quite covers it. Well, for reasonable people.

Weren't you exaggerating? Folks still get hit by lightning, win lotteries, and hit holes in one.

And?

God damn, it'd be easier to understand you if you could type.
Is that, '... when the area you are in is (light years) across'? L's? Leagues? Lizard-tails?

That's funny. Everybody ELSE here understands that ls stands for light second(s)'.

They do? Hell of an assumption on your part, Holmes.

I happen to know because I consistently use ls that way and I can't recall anybody ever asking what it means. As do others, BTW.

Are you now postulating that a Federation starship can attack from light years away? What are you smoking?

I'd brush up on my abbreviations if I were you.

Fine. Brush up on your nomenclature. I believe most publications would have put periods in for clarity, hence, l.s.

I happen not to be a publisher, and I see ly used all over the place (not just here),without the periods, used for lightyear.
As I said before-I didn't know I was writing my doctorate thesis here.
You could simply have asked, you know.

You seem to think that there is a significantly large number of effective attack vectors for the starship to fire from, when this is simply not true.

Yes it is. Infinite, to be exact. We're in space you know.

What, did you use Hitchhikers' Guide as your physics textbook? 'Space is really big ...'?

Give me a reason why I CAN'T attack from a given vector. If I'm attacking a specific subsystem on the target, give me one reason why I can't attack from a given vector in the corresponding hemisphere.

Your 'infinite' area is sharply reduced by your arc-of-fire and your intended target.

My arc of fire is irrelevant as I can simply position my ship so the guns face the target and if I want to hit a specific portion of the target that merely halves my areas of approach.

If I want to punch you in the nose, I generally don't approach from behind you.

No, you approach from somewhere in the 180 by 180 degree hemisphere in front of me.

Space being infinite does not translate as 'infinite paths to all objects', any more than I can dig a tunnel to China.

Err yes it does.

Then why are you wasting my time defending that scenario?

I never did. I pointed out the flaws in your counter.

Where did you get this Trektard claim from?

Paramount. The ones who own Star Trek, you know.

Then there's absolutely no point in ever debating Trek issues, because Braga can invalidate it next episode.

Completely correct, at least about Braga being able to invalidate it.

Still, if the TNG Tech Manual is non-canon, then the Enterprise really runs off of peanut butter and anti-peanut butter, because Okuda is talking out of his ass.

Asstard. MA/AM is canon as it is stated on the actual show.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia is non-canon, because it reiterates material developed for the Tech Manual,

The diagrams and blueprints published in the technical manual are from the same gentlemen who design what you see on the screen. Therefore, the Technical Manual is canon.

NO IT IS NOT MORON. IF those diagrams appeared on screen, then those diagrams are canon.
Who designed them DOES.NOT.MATTER. Werher or not they were seen on air or in the movies does.

Correct. therefore, dilithium crystals are really Folger's Crystals, and nobody noticed the switch.

Are you TRYING to be a moron? Dilithium crystals are stated on the show.

The TNG Technical Manual becomes non-canon only if it is contradicted.

Bzzt. Wrong. The TM IS NOT CANON, period. Some of it's content may be canon if they're confirmed by the actual show.

Since you have affirmed it is powered by M/A reactions and uses dilithium crystals, you have not proven that it is incorrect.

I. Do. Not. Have. To. Paramount has declared anything except the aired episodes and the movies non-canon. Therefore the TM isn't.

... and asked where you got your information, and you seem to think I'm obligated to give you proof for YOUR claim?

Have you ever bothered reading the main site? TW is calculated from effects on-screen.

So, Mike Wong is an authority on Star Trek, but one of the lead designers of the show is talking out of his ass?

As Mike's calcs are based on the aired episodes (which are canon) while your lead designers explanations are from the TM (which is not)...

Yes. As per Paramounts own canonicity policy, nothing outside the actual series' is canon.

I would consider a reference derived from the materials used by the writers of the series to be 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

The Encylopedia, being based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

The Chronology, based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

(Note that Mike has cited the TNG:TM and the ST Encyclopedia in his Technology comparison, therefore, if it's not canon, it's a surprise to more than me.)

Note that Mike made that site eons ago and hasn't updated since. But hey, take it up with him.

I don't have to. You're the person whining about TNG:TM/Encyclopedia being non-canon.[/quote]
No, you're the one whining they have to be canon since Mike used them. I'm simply adhering to Paramount's canon policy.

[Nick Lancaster]

Try again. You're essentially saying that if I know your starting position and your direction of movement,

Which need not be constant

that I cannot accurately predict your destination, despite the limiting factor of combat and effective positions.
That is, there are a finite number of positions where a starship both brings maximum weapons to bear and has the greatest possible effect on a successful hit.

No there aren't. I can attack from wherever the hell I want. This is space.
IF I want to attack a specific subsystem on the target (which is not a given), I'm limited to the hemisphere facing that but that's all.

Yet you keep insisting this is impossible.

No, I keep insisting you can't reliably target an FTL target with c speed sensors. And you can't.

Idiot. All I said was that the light would nonetheless reflect off the hull and give an indication of their position.

An information that will reach you AFTER the target does.

WRT? Expand, please. With Relative Toast? With Ridiculous Tactics?

With regards to. I'd brush up on my acronyms, or at least be polite when asking for clarification.

Irrelevant. You're adhering to the ridiculous Trek assertion that they dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

No, I'm adhering to the assertion that knowing where the target was 10 seconds ago when it is no longer there, especially when the target is moving at multiples of c.

I have already explained why FTL vs. STL combat is a fallacy. (You have only defended FTL vs. FTL, suggesting that their speed relative to one another is STL.)

Hello? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I AGREE that Warp strafing, whatever fashion doesn't work. But neither does your counter.

Whatever for? Wether you can see me or not, this is space. I can attack from wherever damn well I want.

And your movement is still confined by the arc of fire of your weapons and your intended targets.

NO IT IS NOT. Even with fixed axis weapons I can attack from wherever the hell I want.
Imagine a sphere. The target is at the center of the sphere. Now what pray tell keeps me from attacking from any point of that sphere? All I have to do is turn my ship in the target's direction, get withing weapon range, and let loose.

'Wherever damn well I want,' is irrelevant. Why does this concept elude you?

Because you're wrong.

What, SW people can't think? Weapons fire comes from x direction. A moment later, it comes from y direction. Do you think someone MIGHT be able to determine a direction-of-travel for the attacking ship? Are you using truly random approaches on each pass?

Why the hell not? We're talking Trek captains here so it's possible they WON'T but it is entirely possible.
Furthermore, even if the ship is using the same fucking approach every fucking time all he has to do to throw off your prediction is change speed...

Otherwise, by thinking, a reasonable attempt at return fire can be made, rather than this sitting around dumbfounded in the classic Trek-is-Superior scenario. Not to mention which, it's apparently only in Trek where you have to use sensors for everything.

By all means explain to me how you target a ship without sensors. You can try to make an educated guess as to where it'll be next once you have detected it (with sensors, I might add), but that's all it is-a guess.

I did?

Yes, you did.

Urm, might pointing out where, or at least in what way I stated Warp to be superior? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Therefore, if you and your opponent are capable of Warp Six, entering a fight at Warp Four cedes an advantage.

And this discounts the possibility of the enemy also moving at Warp Four how?

Circular argument. Why would they cede their advantage? If faster = superior, why go slower on either side?

Slower Warp drive, battle damage, one of those pesky Warp-speed reducing phenomena, fuel constraints etc for the target.
If your target goes Warp Four, going Warp Six means you'll zip by way to fast to engage for the attacker.

Even better, because that gives you an indication of the attacking ship's vector. I may not have much hope of hitting you, but I'm damn well not going to sit on my thumbs and cry, 'Waaaaaah! Mommy, the Federation ship is going too fast for me!'

Nick, all I was ever getting at is that you don't have much hope of hitting.

I never said he was right. Warp strafing is impossble even from straight line flight. I'm merely up against your idea that you can easily target ships at Warp from rest, especiallly with c speed sensors.

If he's not right, why the fuck are you defending his faulty premise?

I am not defending his premise. I'm attacking your counter. Valen I mean I have stated Warp strafing doesn't work how many times now?

Of course Warp factors below one are STL. They do, however, make it technically possible to fly a tight circle around an ISD at 'Warp' speed.

Still bullshit. If you're going even a quarter of lightspeed, that's roughly 45,000 miles per second. You're not circling anything. You don't seem to be aware that the faster you go, the wider your turns are.

1.Turns do NOT neccessarily get wider the faster you are.
2.Who said anything about 1/4 c? There are Warp factors below one and therefore STL, there's no known lower limit for how low fractional Warp factors go, so who's to say that they can't do it at 20 kph?

By insisting on Warp/FTL combat. So, at Warp 1, one second after you fire, you are 400,000 km away. The proposed combat scenario has a starship flitting around like a snub fighter, maintaining a constant rate of fire, when this is patently ridiculous.

When exactly have I ever said that scenario works, pray tell?

Assume one square ls. Assume Warp 1. Time:1 s. Number of hits needed to connect with a 500x100m target: 1.8e12. Gets lots worse with larger area and higher Warp factors.

I have no idea what you mean by ls. Light year? Why are you assuming this broad combat range, unless you are also assuming effective weapons ranges to match?

Reread my last post. Light second you imbecile.

Where are you getting these figures? You're still throwing meaningless numbers around.

At least I have some. YOUR numbers of TL accurracy against c/FTL targets are?

The concept of exaggeration is apparently foreign to you.

Exaggeration is unwarranted when presenting mathematical data.

Excuse me. I didn't realize I was writing my doctorate thesis here :rolleyes:

Comedian, aren't we? IMHO, asshole.

IMN = what, then? In My Nowledge?

It was a TYPO, fucktard.

:rolleyes: With chances of less than one in a trillion, 'never ever gonna happen' quite covers it. Well, for reasonable people.

Weren't you exaggerating? Folks still get hit by lightning, win lotteries, and hit holes in one.

And?

That's funny. Everybody ELSE here understands that ls stands for light second(s)'.

They do? Hell of an assumption on your part, Holmes.

I happen to know because I consistently use ls that way and I can't recall anybody ever asking what it means. As do others, BTW.

I'd brush up on my abbreviations if I were you.

Fine. Brush up on your nomenclature. I believe most publications would have put periods in for clarity, hence, l.s.

I happen not to be a publisher, and I see ly used all over the place (not just here),without the periods, used for lightyear.
As I said before-I didn't know I was writing my doctorate thesis here.
You could simply have asked, you know.

Yes it is. Infinite, to be exact. We're in space you know.

What, did you use Hitchhikers' Guide as your physics textbook? 'Space is really big ...'?

Give me a reason why I CAN'T attack from a given vector. If I'm attacking a specific subsystem on the target, give me one reason why I can't attack from a given vector in the corresponding hemisphere.

Your 'infinite' area is sharply reduced by your arc-of-fire and your intended target.

My arc of fire is irrelevant as I can simply position my ship so the guns face the target and if I want to hit a specific portion of the target that merely halves my areas of approach.

If I want to punch you in the nose, I generally don't approach from behind you.

No, you approach from somewhere in the 180 by 180 degree hemisphere in front of me.

Space being infinite does not translate as 'infinite paths to all objects', any more than I can dig a tunnel to China.

Err yes it does.

Then why are you wasting my time defending that scenario?

I never did. I pointed out the flaws in your counter.

Paramount. The ones who own Star Trek, you know.

Then there's absolutely no point in ever debating Trek issues, because Braga can invalidate it next episode.

Completely correct, at least about Braga being able to invalidate it.

Asstard. MA/AM is canon as it is stated on the actual show.

The diagrams and blueprints published in the technical manual are from the same gentlemen who design what you see on the screen. Therefore, the Technical Manual is canon.

NO IT IS NOT MORON. IF those diagrams appeared on screen, then those diagrams are canon.
Who designed them DOES.NOT.MATTER. Werher or not they were seen on air or in the movies does.

Are you TRYING to be a moron? Dilithium crystals are stated on the show.

The TNG Technical Manual becomes non-canon only if it is contradicted.

Bzzt. Wrong. The TM IS NOT CANON, period. Some of it's content may be canon if they're confirmed by the actual show.

Since you have affirmed it is powered by M/A reactions and uses dilithium crystals, you have not proven that it is incorrect.

I. Do. Not. Have. To. Paramount has declared anything except the aired episodes and the movies non-canon. Therefore the TM isn't.

Have you ever bothered reading the main site? TW is calculated from effects on-screen.

So, Mike Wong is an authority on Star Trek, but one of the lead designers of the show is talking out of his ass?

As Mike's calcs are based on the aired episodes (which are canon) while your lead designers explanations are from the TM (which is not)...

Yes. As per Paramounts own canonicity policy, nothing outside the actual series' is canon.

I would consider a reference derived from the materials used by the writers of the series to be 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

The Encylopedia, being based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

The Chronology, based on 'what appears on screen' is also 'within the series'.

Really? What episode was it on?
ONLY THE AIRED EPISODES AND THE MOVIES ARE CANON. DEAL WITH IT.

(Note that Mike has cited the TNG:TM and the ST Encyclopedia in his Technology comparison, therefore, if it's not canon, it's a surprise to more than me.)

Note that Mike made that site eons ago and hasn't updated since. But hey, take it up with him.

I don't have to. You're the person whining about TNG:TM/Encyclopedia being non-canon.

No, you're the one whining they have to be canon since Mike used them. I'm simply adhering to Paramount's canon policy.[/quote]

[Deathstalker]

Alright, finally got around to responding. I combined two posts, from contestants #1 and #2( use this instead of their names). I hope this ends it. I want to thank everyone for their help. I used a few ideas brought up here, but as I was replying, things just seemed to roll out. I really wasn't going for the throat in the begining, as it was an off topic thing for the group. But after the replies, I felt the need for an Imperial Smackdown. I think the wall of ignorance may be to thick. The funny thing, contestant #2 is an evolutionist, and in another post i don't have here, a creationist backed me up on the Endor bit! It crossed my mind to use the fact that contestant #2 is an evolutionist, but I decided that I was already stretching the off topic discussiont.

Everything below was reply.

I've combined Contestant #1's later post here as well, it is at the bottom.

I should have prefaced everything by saying that a war between the Galatic Empire(or the New Republic for that matter) say at the time of Empire Strikes Back and the United Federation of Planets (and pretty much the rest of the empires of the Milky Way) say at a couple of years after the end of the DOminion war, would end in complete victory for the GE.

The GE has the advantage in speed, firepower, and industrial capactiy.

How do I know this?
Because ships in the SW galaxy can cross said distances in hours or days that would take UFP ships months or years to cross.

Because the the guns on a 20 year old troopship dish out 200 gigatons of energy when fired. This is for the Acclamator- class listed in the ATOC Incredible cross section book, which is a canon source according to Lucas. The weapons on an Imperial Star Destroyer are going to be at least as powerful. Compared to the 64 megatons for a photon torpedo, which comes from the TNG Tech manual, which is not a canon source according to Paramount, but on screen evidence indcates that the number is fairly accurate. Quantom torps are about 128 megatons or so according to on screen evidence.
Because the GE has the industrial might of millions of worlds to call on, while the UFP has 150 member worlds and maybe a few thousand colonies. (This pretty much ended the SWvsST depate for all but the most rabid Trek supporters.)


I'm not not making anything up or going by what I think. I'm basing it off evidence collected by a number of people for at least the last six years, and some go back farther. People on both sides have analyzed all of the footage and material and have hashed it out.

--- In swmb@yahoogroups.com, Contestant #2 wrote:

I'll keep this short if I can.


> replicators
Are replicators neat whiz bang technology? Yes. Can I get a ham sandwiche faster than making it myself? Yes. Will it help the UFP defeat the GE? No.
Why? Because repllicators are not used to build really big things like ships. And even if they could, the UFP still can't match the industrial capacity of the GE

> Transporters have
Are transporters neat whiz bang technology? Yes. Would I get in one? No. WIll they help the UFP defeat the GE? No
Why? Because transportes have no real use in a starship battle, and can be defeated in so many ways that they are rendered useless.


> time travel.
Not a reliable technology, nearly every instance involves some outside force. Would it help the UFP defeat the GE? No.
Why? Because time travel generated byt UFP ships can only go back a few hundred years at best, and are never going to get the tech base in time to defeat the GE.


> Not much larger than a car. Both are probably smaller than your average Ford
> 150 (which is a BIG truck) and fit within my definition.

> > <.starfighters(X-wings, Ywings, small transports (Republic Gunships),>
> >
> I was not specific enough, my apologies. I did not mean to include outer
> space vehicles. Technically these do not "hover", they have VTOL, not quite the
> same thing (although they use repulsorlift technology).

This has been a non-sensical argument from the start. Let me end it now with the following examples, which I should have used the first time: Trade Federation AAT(floating tank), MTT (floating transport), and my favorite Jabba the Hut's sail barge. I'll assume you concede this point.

> Except Trek did it first, with Stratos, about fifteen
> years before Lucas did.
The UFP did not build Stratos.

> but come on, you have to admit the Ewok victory is nothing short of ridiculous.

The Ewoks and the rebels were only victorious after an AT/ST was captured. The Endor battle really has nothing to do with the debate as it was an in universe conflict, with the same tech all the way aroung.

> > <.I can count on my hand the number of androids in the ST universe.
> > There are billions in use in the SW univers.>
> >
> But they are all, to a one, less advanced than Data, who has skin, albeit not
> completely human appearing, and can fly a starship with his brain. I think
> IG-88 did that, in one of the novels, but most droids in the SW films, Artoo
> excepted, are kind of tards (battle droids, etc.).

SW droids can be made to appear human like, there is just a bias against it. Data's skin is synthetic, not organic. A SW droid can be designed to do anything Data can do, and can be replicated. The UFP is incapable of building another Data. Proof of this is when a Star Fleet officer wanted to dismantel Data to see what made him work.


> Numbers are meaningless when you're talking tech level.

The thing is the GE has both the tech level AND the numbers to utterly crush the UFP, and pretty much the rest of the milky way galaxy.


<.It still has better tech, and tech that works a lot better than ST
tech.>
This is a fact. SW tech is largely established and understood and more reliable on a day to day use.

>I think we would agree that we
> both prefer Star Wars; but your disdain of Trek's tech seems to stem more from
> a dislike of Trek than from any salient argument of why SW has a higher tech
> level. To me, as long as both respective shows/movies use their tech
> creatively, it's all fun.

I don't dislike Trek, excpet for Voyager and Enterprise, but I know when it is outclassed by another sci-fi culture, and I know when it outclasses another sci-fi culture. Star Wars is not a cultures outclassed by Trek.


--- In swmb@yahoogroups.com, Contestant #1 wrote:
> I checked out the site. I thought it was interesting, but all its >arguments were flawed by a total lack of objectivity.
Deathstalker note: He is talking about Mike's site of course. Down boys and girls, down!

Thank you for looking at it. It's not a lack of objectivity when the evidence shows that something is superior to something else.

> First; there are a lot more instances of warp speed combat in >Trek -- especially the original series -- than one or two. More like fifteen or twenty.

Are you sure? This site has been seen by dozens of people on both sides of the debate. The site's author is not one to discard evidence just because it may go against his conclusions. If warp speed combat is so prevelant, why don't we see it used against the Borg at Wolf 359 in "Best of Both Worlds" or against the Dominion in "Sacrifice of Angels"? Both were large scale fleet battles but no use of warp speed combat.

> The relative equivalency of Star Wars combt to World War II >air/naval technology is completely valid, the key word there >being "relative". Large fleets centered around massive platforms >capital ships) dispatch long-range strike elements (fighters) to >targets out of the engagement range of the main elements of the >fleets. Don't think of it as P-51's think of it as Hellcats and >Corsairs in the Pacific

With the prevalance of big guns in the SW universe, the tactics may be similar. Trek isn't any better, with walls of ships slamming into each, closing to point blank range and blasting away, similar tactics used by 18th century wooden ships. Tactics are dictated by technology. Trek loses on both ends. They don't have the range, much less the firepower to hurt SW ships at long range, and if they close to point blank range they will be annihilated, and still won't do any damage.

>But the potency of Trek's wepaons,
That should be "impotency".
>the ability of Trek sensors to
>detect enemy ships at warp (or in "hyperspace", both of which they >can do, evidenced many times throughout the series')

So GE ships won't be able to detect UFP ships? And even if they can't for some reason, it won't make a difference, because UFP ships cannot catch GE ships. The UFP can only make a stand over a planet, and die valiantly. They UFP will never be able to threaten GE supply lines, or retake planets. The GE can pop out of hyperspace, clobber a target, and either stick around to clobber UFP ships, or simply jump to the next target, and the UFP can't do anything about it.

>and virtual >immunity of their shields to lasers (also evidenced in >episodes of >Voyager and Deep Space Nine)
Turbolasers are not lasers, despite the name. And even if they were, no UFP ship will survive getting hit by 200+ gigatons of energy. Even the most rapid Trek supporter I know concedes this.

> means that an engagement between the
>Trek fleets and the SW fleets would be, at best, a Falklands War

No, it would be like a US Navy Pacific Fleet Task force from WW2 (GE)attacking a 16th century wooden ship of the line fleet(UFP).

I have seen all the evidence and all the arguments invovled in the SWvsST debate to know without a doubt who would win. If the site doesn't convince you, I can't help that. I'm willing to let this go, as we can go round and round about it. The evidence has convinced me, and if it doesn't convince you, then that's your business.

[Darth Servo]

I checked out the site. I thought it was interesting, but all its >arguments were flawed by a total lack of objectivity.

Really? This clown thinks measuring canon events is not objective but extrapolating vague quotes to infinity is? (He actually accepts the "no-laser" myth as seen below.)

First; there are a lot more instances of warp speed combat in Trek -- especially the original series -- than one or two. More like fifteen or twenty

A) Whould this tard care to NAME these ecamples? Even just an episode name would help since otherwise, we'd need to comb through all 70+ TOS episodes to find them. Who wants to bet he pulled yet another number out of his ass.

B) Even if this tard is right, Mike not spelling out EVER LAST example of warp combat is hardly proof of his lack of objectivity. The fact is he DOES mention its existance in TOS, so this jackass is clearly full of shit.

C) In one of those TOS warp combat examples, Sulu was calling out the distance between the E-nil and the enemy ship and they were numbers like "90,000 km...80,000...70,000" with a few seconds inbetween each. If the enemy ship truly was traveling faster than light, those numbers would be at least two orders of magnitude higher. 10,000km every few seconds is most certainly SLOWER than light speed. Something these Trekkie warp combat s tend to either forget or ignore.

and virtual immunity of their shields to lasers (also evidenced in episodes of Voyager and Deep Space Nine)

He actually referenced the insane "immunity to lasers" myth?!? ROTFLMAO. That alone is proof of this person's utter stupidity.

DS9 and Voy have NEVER shown any support for the "no lasers" myth. This moron is either blatently ignorant of his favorite show or straight out lying. The ONLY "evidence" for that myth is one of MANY interpretations of a few scraps of dialogue from TNG's "Outrageous Okona" and even that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[Darth Servo]

the ability of Trek sensors to detect enemy ships at warp (or in "hyperspace", both of which they can do, evidenced many times throughout the series')

WHEN have Trek sensors demonstrated the ability to track something traveling millions of times the speed of light?[/quote]

[Deathstalker]

Apperantly both contestants gave up.

All one of them had to say in response to my previous post.

That's the beauty of fantasy; everybody is entitled to their own opinions AND
their own facts!

I have decided not to continue it further. It was a fun mental exercise, and let me have a glimpse of what it must have been like to debate Dorkstar and his ilk. I have to admit though that I used Dorkstar's consession about the 'laser immunity' myth when I mentioned this

Turbolasers are not lasers, despite the name. And even if they were, no UFP ship will survive getting hit by 200+ gigatons of energy. Even the most rapid Trek supporter I know concedes this.

Obvioulsy didn't mention DS by name, as the group wouldn't have a clue who he was.

This is my favorite reponse:

> means that an engagement between the
>Trek fleets and the SW fleets would be, at best, a Falklands War

No, it would be like a US Navy Pacific Fleet Task force from WW2 (GE)attacking a 16th century wooden ship of the line fleet(UFP).

[Darth Servo]

That's the beauty of fantasy; everybody is entitled to their own opinions AND their own facts!

Thats when you post a gigantic, bolded, underlined, colored, italicied "concession accepted"