Thinking of ways to compare Star Wars/Trek on equal footing

[Bothan Spy]

Hello all - first time poster and want to say love the site.

I'd also like to say that I'm impressed with Darth Wong's calculations on who has the best technology. However, isn't this debate really comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples?

After all, Star Trek is at heart classic science fiction (with at least some grounding in real science/tech) while Star Wars is space opera. Everything in Star Wars is supposed to be of mythic proportions - its the Illiad with blasters and x-wing fighters. On the other hand, the writers/producers of Star Trek has always tried to maintain a certain level of "plausability."

I admit I'm only a lowly tech writer and not a real engineer, but it seems to me this debate is the equivalent of comparing a high fantasy world like Tolkien to a more "realistic" fantasy world like that of George RR Martin. Would the men of the Night's Watch under Jon Stark be able to kill a Nazghul? Of course not - there is very little magic in Martin's world and Jon Stark and his brave brothers in black would have no way of harming a wringwraith. In order to have a fair debate, you would have to equalize the playing field - for example letting Stark carry Aragon's sword Narsil into the battle.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: is there any way to compare and contrast Star Wars and Star Trek technology on a more equal playing field? Here are some ideas and I hope others are interested at looking at the Star Wars-Trek debate from this angle:

1. Obviously the Star Wars universe obeys different laws than our own (ie, Jedi). If the Federation entered the Empire's space, wouldn't it be possible that suddenly their ships would have greater power and speed? Or maybe Federation commanders like Piccard and Kirk would suddenly be force sensitive, giving them a huge advantage over mortal Empire commanders? Would the Enterprise suddenly have all the power and agility of a Mon Calamari battle cruiser (still underclassed by a star destroyer but at least not a fight between a tug boat and an aircraft carrier)?

Likewise, if the Empire somehow traveled to Federation space would they not suddenly be subject to the rules of our universe (bye bye power of the force; ships that cannot jump galaxies in mere seconds; the Death Star likely to implode due to its sheer impossible size).

2. Perhaps the problem is one of time - the Empire has had millions of years to develop space travel while the Federation has only existed for a few centuries. Is there a way to theoretically compare what tech the Federation will have after thousands of years and compare that to the Empire at the height of its glory? Perhaps you could extrapolate how much progress the Federation makes in tech from Enterprise to Voyager, then make a logical guess as to how far the Federation could get in a few thousand years towards catching up with the Empire.

Anyhow, food for thought. As I've said before I'm not an expert engineer but I am an aspiring Sci-fi fantasy writer/rabid fanboi of both series. If others in the community propose interest in this debate, I'll be happy to help out with the research as best I can.

Once again, great site and I look forward to posting here.

[Darth Wong]

You're massively ignorant if you think that Star Trek is more realistic. The show pisses all over science at every opportunity, and has all manner of mystical apparitions, up to and including ghosts. It even includes things like dead spirits possessing peoples' bodies: a classic plot device from bad horror films.

[Ted C]

However, isn't this debate really comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples?

No. Assuming a common set of universal physical laws is the only way to make a fair comparison.

After all, Star Trek is at heart classic science fiction (with at least some grounding in real science/tech) while Star Wars is space opera. Everything in Star Wars is supposed to be of mythic proportions - its the Illiad with blasters and x-wing fighters. On the other hand, the writers/producers of Star Trek has always tried to maintain a certain level of "plausability."

Star Trek has never tried to really maintain plausibility, unless you think using a sonic weapon against a target in space is plausible. The stylistic distinctions, if any, are irrelevant to a debate about the outcome of a massive military confrontation.

I admit I'm only a lowly tech writer and not a real engineer, but it seems to me this debate is the equivalent of comparing a high fantasy world like Tolkien to a more "realistic" fantasy world like that of George RR Martin.

I'm a tech writer, too, and I think you're out of your tree.

Would the men of the Night's Watch under Jon Stark be able to kill a Nazghul? Of course not - there is very little magic in Martin's world and Jon Stark and his brave brothers in black would have no way of harming a wringwraith. In order to have a fair debate, you would have to equalize the playing field - for example letting Stark carry Aragon's sword Narsil into the battle.

No, you wouldn't. If the Night's Watch doesn't have the right tools to deal with one of the Nazgul, then the Night's Watch is toast in a confrontation with one of the Nazgul. End of story. Giving the Night's Watch extra resources to "balance" the match is, in fact, cheating in favor of the Night's Watch.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: is there any way to compare and contrast Star Wars and Star Trek technology on a more equal playing field?

Objectively comparing their demonstrated capabilities is the only fair and impartial way to evaluate them.

1. Obviously the Star Wars universe obeys different laws than our own (ie, Jedi). If the Federation entered the Empire's space, wouldn't it be possible that suddenly their ships would have greater power and speed? Or maybe Federation commanders like Piccard and Kirk would suddenly be force sensitive, giving them a huge advantage over mortal Empire commanders? Would the Enterprise suddenly have all the power and agility of a Mon Calamari battle cruiser (still underclassed by a star destroyer but at least not a fight between a tug boat and an aircraft carrier)?

In other words, you admit that the Empire's demonstrated capabilities are vastly superior to those of the Federation; otherwise you wouldn't need to adjust the laws of physics to favor the Federation.

Likewise, if the Empire somehow traveled to Federation space would they not suddenly be subject to the rules of our universe (bye bye power of the force; ships that cannot jump galaxies in mere seconds; the Death Star likely to implode due to its sheer impossible size).

Same as above.

2. Perhaps the problem is one of time - the Empire has had millions of years to develop space travel while the Federation has only existed for a few centuries. Is there a way to theoretically compare what tech the Federation will have after thousands of years and compare that to the Empire at the height of its glory? Perhaps you could extrapolate how much progress the Federation makes in tech from Enterprise to Voyager, then make a logical guess as to how far the Federation could get in a few thousand years towards catching up with the Empire.

No, there is no way to make such a comparison. You can't compare what the Empire has now to what the Federation might have millenia from now and think that you're really doing a fair and impartial assessment.

If you want to get technical, the events of Star Wars took place "a long time ago", while the events of Star Trek take place hundreds of years in the future, so if anyone has grounds to claim additional time for development, it's Star Wars.

Anyhow, food for thought. As I've said before I'm not an expert engineer but I am an aspiring Sci-fi fantasy writer/rabid fanboi of both series. If others in the community propose interest in this debate, I'll be happy to help out with the research as best I can.

At the moment, you seem to be more of a rabid Trek fanboy than a rabid Star Wars fanboy, since your first post is an attempt to justify adjusting the laws of physics to favor the Federation.

[Darth Wong]

Remember, it's not a "level playing field" according to this guy unless the teams themselves are equalized. By that logic, every kind of "vs" matchup imaginable should end in a draw, no matter who is facing whom.

Alexander the Great vs General Patton? No problem, just assume the Macedonians have advanced to Patton's technology level! Pee Wee Herman vs Muhammad Ali in his prime? No problem, just assume that Pee Wee Herman has been working out and training to be a boxer his whole life! A T-34 versus an M1 Abrams? No problem, just assume that the T-34 is 50 years more advanced!

[Lord Zentei]

- "Waah waah waaah, that guy won the race! No fair!"

- "How is that not fair? You had the same race track, started simultaneously...."

- "Yeah, but he's a better athlete than me!"

[Ghost Rider]

Hello all - first time poster and want to say love the site.

I'd also like to say that I'm impressed with Darth Wong's calculations on who has the best technology. However, isn't this debate really comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples?

After all, Star Trek is at heart classic science fiction (with at least some grounding in real science/tech) while Star Wars is space opera. Everything in Star Wars is supposed to be of mythic proportions - its the Illiad with blasters and x-wing fighters. On the other hand, the writers/producers of Star Trek has always tried to maintain a certain level of "plausability."

No it hasn't. Star Trek has beings of unexplainable and vast matter manipulation powers. The ability for FTL travel, and has demonstrated repeated time travel. This is nowhere near the realm of plausability.

I admit I'm only a lowly tech writer and not a real engineer, but it seems to me this debate is the equivalent of comparing a high fantasy world like Tolkien to a more "realistic" fantasy world like that of George RR Martin. Would the men of the Night's Watch under Jon Stark be able to kill a Nazghul? Of course not - there is very little magic in Martin's world and Jon Stark and his brave brothers in black would have no way of harming a wringwraith. In order to have a fair debate, you would have to equalize the playing field - for example letting Stark carry Aragon's sword Narsil into the battle.

Why? The point of comparing universes is not to see who's the better character but to see who would win in a battle with their respective weapons.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: is there any way to compare and contrast Star Wars and Star Trek technology on a more equal playing field?

Yes, we ask ourselves who's the better tactician, and honestly Trek still falls desperately short.

Here are some ideas and I hope others are interested at looking at the Star Wars-Trek debate from this angle:

1. Obviously the Star Wars universe obeys different laws than our own (ie, Jedi).

Strange that you give no examples other bringing up the Force. I should be able to claim that Trek follows different laws of our own on the basis of Warp Drive.

If the Federation entered the Empire's space, wouldn't it be possible that suddenly their ships would have greater power and speed?

No. What makes you even think this happens?

Or maybe Federation commanders like Piccard and Kirk would suddenly be force sensitive, giving them a huge advantage over mortal Empire commanders?

One, why would it happen, and two why would an untrained padawan with no comprehension of their abilities make a damn whit of difference in the battlefield?

Would the Enterprise suddenly have all the power and agility of a Mon Calamari battle cruiser (still underclassed by a star destroyer but at least not a fight between a tug boat and an aircraft carrier)?

Once again, why would it happen beyond your puerile leveling attempt?

Likewise, if the Empire somehow traveled to Federation space would they not suddenly be subject to the rules of our universe (bye bye power of the force; ships that cannot jump galaxies in mere seconds; the Death Star likely to implode due to its sheer impossible size).

I see, you want to wank to the Federation.

2. Perhaps the problem is one of time - the Empire has had millions of years to develop space travel while the Federation has only existed for a few centuries. Is there a way to theoretically compare what tech the Federation will have after thousands of years and compare that to the Empire at the height of its glory?

Been there, done that...and the complaint is the same. No one can accurately extrapolate and the fact you cannot guarantee any of the result would not be just fanciful wishing.

Perhaps you could extrapolate how much progress the Federation makes in tech from Enterprise to Voyager, then make a logical guess as to how far the Federation could get in a few thousand years towards catching up with the Empire.

See above of this line of fallcious reasoning.

Anyhow, food for thought. As I've said before I'm not an expert engineer but I am an aspiring Sci-fi fantasy writer/rabid fanboi of both series. .

And it shows.

[Darth Wong]

Remember, the Jedi are unrealistic. But Q? He's totally realistic, right?

[Ghost Rider]

Remember, the Jedi are unrealistic. But Q? He's totally realistic, right?

Why go that far? I still want someone to tell me with a straight face that Spock throwing his soul into another man's body is realistic. Trektards tend to gloss over such bits..

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I once might have tried to place the two on equal footing, but for the reasons above and more I know that's just ridiculous. Equal footing? The only way that could happen is if the Imperials were stupid enough (as some Trektards would like to think) to have their entire invasion fleet in one place and having the Aeon conveniently appear in the middle. It might then misalign its temporal drive, triggering a temporal explosion big enough to destroy a star system. Of course they conveniently forget how somehow enough debris from Voyager survived such an explosion to enable their identification...

[Ghost Rider]

I once might have tried to place the two on equal footing, but for the reasons above and more I know that's just ridiculous. Equal footing? The only way that could happen is if the Imperials were stupid enough (as some Trektards would like to think) to have their entire invasion fleet in one place and having the Aeon conveniently appear in the middle. It might then misalign its temporal drive, triggering a temporal explosion big enough to destroy a star system. Of course they conveniently forget how somehow enough debris from Voyager survived such an explosion to enable their identification...

You do understand equal footing, is claiming that both sides have similar or same levels of power.

Not one time tactics or stupidity.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I was thinking that it would take such a distortion to give the Federation half a chance against the Empire.

[NecronLord]

Before maligning Space Opera, you should probably know that EE. Smith, PhD, often cited as the 'father of space opera' wrote his stories far more firmly grounded in science (Of the time, mind) than any Star Trek episode. Just because it's Space Opera, doesn't mean the science is inferior.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I'm betting this guy only knows the films and since the science isn't mentioned that much I can see why he might think that. Of course, it doesn't make him right.

[Ghost Rider]

Thank you Captain Obvious, now stop spamming unless you're going to actually contribute beyond going cheerleader mode.

[Darth Lucifer]

...the writers/producers of Star Trek [have] always tried to maintain a certain level of "plausability."

Let's review; Time travel in all five series; Katra-swaps, mind-melds, soul-switching, devolving into animals, cosmic beings of extraordinary power, military incompetence beyond belief and a pussified vision of the future. Oh, and Spock's Brain.

...In order to have a fair debate, you would have to equalize the playing field - for example letting Stark carry Aragon's sword Narsil into the battle.

That's like saying "The Federation ships are armed with turbolaser cannons and hyperdrive." The debate is about comparing the respective technologies, tactics, etc. of each universe. Giving one side an edge by arming them with the weaponry of the opposition defeats the purpose.

...Obviously the Star Wars universe obeys different laws than our own (ie, Jedi). If the Federation entered the Empire's space, wouldn't it be possible that suddenly their ships would have greater power and speed?

Under your thinking it would be equally possible that M/AM reactors suddenly explode like an M-80 firecracker in the SW universe.

Or maybe Federation commanders like Picard and Kirk would suddenly be Force sensitive, giving them a huge advantage over mortal Empire commanders?

Depends on their Midichlorien count... (ugh, I can't believe I just said that). Even then, how would they use such newfound abilities? It's not like they trained from childhood or anything. I'm almost willing to bet you'd like to see Kirk and Picard swinging lightsabers with said newfound force power...

...the Death Star likely to implode due to its sheer impossible size.

Wrong. A Dyson sphere was shown in ST:TNG and it did not implode in on itself. Hell, you could fit multiple Death Stars inside that Dyson Sphere.

...Perhaps the problem is one of time... <snip>

Here I thought he was going to whip out the old Time Travel argument. The end result is the same...it's giving an unfair edge to the Federation which you repeatedly admit would be crushed like a bug by the Empire. At that point, it's does become apples and oranges, to steal a phrase. It's no longer Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

[Ted C]

Looks like we have another one-post wonder.

[Bothan Spy]

@ NecronLord - I didn't mean to imply that I hate space opera or that it's inferior. I was only pointing out that Star Trek and Star Wars come from relatively different backgrounds and that Star Wars was always meant to be grander in scope. As I've said before, I love the original Star Wars series.

@Darth Wong - point taken about Q, the Borg, Spock's resurrection, etc. though I was more referring to the fact that Federation technology is a little more plausible than lightsabers and death stars. When all is said and done both series are pretty fantastical.

As to the argument about Patton versus Alexander - armchair historians compare and contrast commanders from different eras all the time and take liberties with what kind of weapons/tech each side has. I was merely trying to spark discussion about whether a similar match-up could be made when it comes to Star Wars/Trek.

@Lord Zentei - Given in a sprint race, the Empire wins every time. But then the Empire has to OCCUPY the Star Trek galaxy, and the sprint race becomes a marathon. Can the Empire maintain supply lines over such a vast distance? Won't Alliance spies come in and help out the fledgling resistance? Or maybe the Empire would just destroy every Federation system but that's hardly the MO of a egomaniac like the Emperor who enjoys the groveling admiration of all those subjects beneath his heel.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

[Ted C]

Looks like we have another one-post wonder.

Of course, saying that naturally causes him to post immediatly...

[SirNitram]

@Darth Wong - point taken about Q, the Borg, Spock's resurrection, etc. though I was more referring to the fact that Federation technology is a little more plausible than lightsabers and death stars. When all is said and done both series are pretty fantastical.

Absolutely, positively, totally, wrong.

'Impulse Drive' vs. 'Ion Drive', the latter being something that's been demonstrated to work.

Computer which can be infected by completely alien code and execute it without permission from the crew?

Time travel at the drop of a hat.

'Full stop' in space.

Glowy clouds as 'Energy'.

And we're not even touching the blatant abuse of 'wave' physics, random radiation, and other bullshit.

ST is not realistic, not in technology, no in any part.

[Bounty]

'Impulse Drive' vs. 'Ion Drive', the latter being something that's been demonstrated to work.

Wait, I thought SW "ion drives" were like SW "lasers" - same name, different system. Isn't an ion drive awfully slow to accelerate?

[SirNitram]

'Impulse Drive' vs. 'Ion Drive', the latter being something that's been demonstrated to work.

Wait, I thought SW "ion drives" were like SW "lasers" - same name, different system. Isn't an ion drive awfully slow to accelerate?

SW lasers are noticably different from the real thing for extensive reasons. I've not seen much against them being true ion engines.

Of course, with the 'hypermatter ballast' theory put forth by Dr. Saxton in the ICS, it could be that they are normal Ion engines, but only having to move a very, very light object. I dunno. I stick with ion drives until I see evidence against.

[Ted C]

@Darth Wong - point taken about Q, the Borg, Spock's resurrection, etc. though I was more referring to the fact that Federation technology is a little more plausible than lightsabers and death stars. When all is said and done both series are pretty fantastical.

They are not a bit more "fantastical" than weapons that cause people to disappear without a trace, devices that can magically translate any language, devices that can magically teleport people from place to place, etc. Star Trek is no less a fantasy than Star Wars.

As to the argument about Patton versus Alexander - armchair historians compare and contrast commanders from different eras all the time and take liberties with what kind of weapons/tech each side has. I was merely trying to spark discussion about whether a similar match-up could be made when it comes to Star Wars/Trek.

Then you're asking for an evaluation of tactical skills if you give both sides the same resources. That's a very small subset of the larger question of which side (the Empire or the Federation) would win a war.

@Lord Zentei - Given in a sprint race, the Empire wins every time. But then the Empire has to OCCUPY the Star Trek galaxy, and the sprint race becomes a marathon. Can the Empire maintain supply lines over such a vast distance?

Why not? They have enormous interstellar shipping conglomerates that dwarf anything the Federation has ever conceived.

Won't Alliance spies come in and help out the fledgling resistance?

Why should they? The Alliance is largely avoiding direct confrontation already. How much could they realistically help the Federation resistance, anyway? At best, they could replace the Federation resistance, because their experts would be the only ones who could organize the resistance to fight the Empire, and they would prioritize the use of Federation assets for their own ends.

Or maybe the Empire would just destroy every Federation system but that's hardly the MO of a egomaniac like the Emperor who enjoys the groveling admiration of all those subjects beneath his heel.

The Empire wouldn't destroy every Fed system; they wouldn't have to. The Federation populace is largely unarmed, and a large occupation force like the Empire could field would be able to control the fairly small number of resource centers that they would need to completely dominate Federation space.

[Darth Lucifer]

Alexander the Great vs General Patton? No problem, just assume the Macedonians have advanced to Patton's technology level! Pee Wee Herman vs Muhammad Ali in his prime? No problem, just assume that Pee Wee Herman has been working out and training to be a boxer his whole life! A T-34 versus an M1 Abrams? No problem, just assume that the T-34 is 50 years more advanced!

...As to the argument about Patton versus Alexander - armchair historians compare and contrast commanders from different eras all the time and take liberties with what kind of weapons/tech each side has.

I've never heard ANY historian compare and contrast commanders and 'take liberties' (READ: re-arm and re-equip) with the opposition's technology and knowledge.

[Ghost Rider]

@ NecronLord - I didn't mean to imply that I hate space opera or that it's inferior. I was only pointing out that Star Trek and Star Wars come from relatively different backgrounds and that Star Wars was always meant to be grander in scope. As I've said before, I love the original Star Wars series.

Bullshit. You specifically mentioned:

classic science fiction (with at least some grounding in real science/tech)

Which Trek barely follow the former and in almost no way follows the latter.

@Darth Wong - point taken about Q, the Borg, Spock's resurrection, etc. though I was more referring to the fact that Federation technology is a little more plausible than lightsabers and death stars. When all is said and done both series are pretty fantastical.

No it isn't you ignorant moron. The point is that it reads like it is to supposedly be more realistic but by no measure is it even close to being realistic anymore then Hyperdrive and the Force.

As to the argument about Patton versus Alexander - armchair historians compare and contrast commanders from different eras all the time and take liberties with what kind of weapons/tech each side has. I was merely trying to spark discussion about whether a similar match-up could be made when it comes to Star Wars/Trek.

And Trek still falls short in competent commanders...or does this slip by your ignorant viewings of Star Trek?

@Lord Zentei - Given in a sprint race, the Empire wins every time. But then the Empire has to OCCUPY the Star Trek galaxy, and the sprint race becomes a marathon. Can the Empire maintain supply lines over such a vast distance?

Yes. They maintain intellar companies that can field hundred of trillion quadrillion sentients or were you even watching Phantom Menace?

Won't Alliance spies come in and help out the fledgling resistance?

Why? The Federation has nothing to offer the Alliance except warm bodies.

Or maybe the Empire would just destroy every Federation system but that's hardly the MO of a egomaniac like the Emperor who enjoys the groveling admiration of all those subjects beneath his heel.

They can cover every planet in the Federation with a hundreth of their most minimal starfleet. This demonstrates a tactical superiority that Starflet has no way of counter acting.

[Stark]

I've never heard ANY historian compare and contrast commanders and 'take liberties' (READ: re-arm and re-equip) with the opposition's technology and knowledge.

I've heard things like 'What would x general have done *in place* of y general', like Alexander in Pattons place. However, this is a comparision of temperament or skill, not 'the military forces of Alexander' in place of 'the military forces of Patton', which is just absurd.

What 'Bothan Spy' seems to have missed is what he wants to AVOID is what we want to DISCUSS. Since he's contorting so much, he agrees that the Empire would kick the shit out of the Federation. That's where we stop: ST vs SW... SW wins, the end. He wants to somehow avoid a direct comparision of military capabilities.

Frankly, his example of Nightwatch vs Nazgul is absurd. Seriously, if someone did 'Wolverine vs Nazgul', we'd say 'Wolverine is toast' not 'shit we better give Wolverine a magic fucking sword to make it even'. Like Mike said, that's like taking a lopsided comparison (small dog versus a Shadow Death Cloud) and instead of accepting the result (dog is smarter but loses anyway) he'd want to give the dog a pair of Victory warships and a supporting fleet.

He should explain what, exactly, he wants to compare in a versus. We want to compare capabilities - dogs can't defeat Shadow Death Clouds. Does he want to compare character, or skill, or what?