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

[Darth Fanboy]

BothanSpy, If you want to try and compare Trek Characters and Wars characters on equal grounds then you test them on equal grounds, you don't give one side a boost to even it up.

Good Example: Comparing Redshirts to Stormtroopers against each other in small squad level tactics. If you want to compare skill then give them identical uniforms and paintball gunsand then judge based on performance. Then you can judge fairly without the technology making it an easy sweep for SW. The Stormies would still thump the deadshirts anyways, but that's a debate for another time.

Bad Example: Comparing Worf to Darth Vader in an unarmed fight. BEcause Darth Vader has the force you want to give Worf some sort of telekinetic power to give him equal footing. This is wrong.

Good Example: Judging R2-D2 and Data in terms of usefulness and computer-cracking skills by putting them on some sort of derelict alien spaceship unknown to either of them.

Bad Example: Pitting a Federation Runabout against an X-Wing and giving the Runabout the same level shielding and firepower as an X-Wing.

[HSRTG]

*snip* Can the Empire maintain supply lines over such a vast distance?

The Empire maintains supply lines over an entire galaxy with no apparent shortages to its military. Since the Empire's commanders aren't complete retards, they'd most likely begin mining and industrial operations in the new quadrant immediately using prefab units and indigenous populations as slaves. Nothing like some slaves to get an economy going, and those saps might as well make themselves useful.

Do I even have to mention that the DSII's raw materials were all transported by a single shipping company?

And all of its Star Destroyers were built by a single company?

And all of its millions (minimum) TIE fighters were built by a single company?

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

What are you expecting them to do? Blow them up with some thermal detonators? If the Alliance could manage to overthrow the Empire in an entire quadrant of a galaxy, with that quadrant having a vastly lower tech level, don't you think they would've had it easier with the Empire in their own galaxy?

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.

Why bother? A few BDZs will convince anyone sane that resistance really is futile. The Empire could also play the Eclipse and/or Beach Ball of Doom cards too.

With Imperial conveniences (droids), space travel for Joe Citizen*, and the preferential treatment of humans, I can't see Federation civilian resistance lasting to long.


*There's lots of tourism in Star Wars, and even poor refugees can afford transportation across a reasonable chunk of the galaxy (AotC).

[Lord Poe]

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

Well, let's qualify the lasers thing. Graham Kennedy himself tried to "retcon" that old argument by saying Trek weapons called "lasers" bore no resemblence to RL lasers either. So, weapons Trek classes as "lasers" are inferior...get where he's going?

Yet, "some kind of laser" the Borg uses to cut up the E-D's saucer section is widely dismissed as Worf being "mistaken" about the nomenclature of the weapon. Which we reply with a hearty, "bullshit".

[RedImperator]

Actually, that Borg "laser", while considerably more laser like than SW turbolasers, still behaved in a manner impossible for a laser.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, for some reason ordinary sunlight can break down a GCS shields in sufficient quantity, as can X-rays and numerous other forms of naturally occurring radiation in Star Trek. But a laser? TOTAL IMMUNITY! I have always wondered just how deranged someone has to be in order to believe that nonsense.

[Sun Wukung]

Of course, for some reason ordinary sunlight can break down a GCS shields in sufficient quantity, as can X-rays and numerous other forms of naturally occurring radiation in Star Trek. But a laser? TOTAL IMMUNITY! I have always wondered just how deranged someone has to be in order to believe that nonsense.

My rebuttal to such a statement would be to point out that a laser is focused radiation and that the sheilds are vunerable to radiation. I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused. The best analogy is a hose spraying water. The power wash is going to have more punch than, say the shower. Of course, they might try to get you to prove that radiation and water act even remotely similar. The best thing to do is to point to the precedent and show what others have said. That even means quoting the old arguments against the 'no laser' argument.

[Soontir C'boath]

Of course, for some reason ordinary sunlight can break down a GCS shields in sufficient quantity, as can X-rays and numerous other forms of naturally occurring radiation in Star Trek. But a laser? TOTAL IMMUNITY! I have always wondered just how deranged someone has to be in order to believe that nonsense.

My rebuttal to such a statement would be to point out that a laser is focused radiation and that the sheilds are vunerable to radiation. I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused. The best analogy is a hose spraying water. The power wash is going to have more punch than, say the shower. Of course, they might try to get you to prove that radiation and water act even remotely similar. The best thing to do is to point to the precedent and show what others have said. That even means quoting the old arguments against the 'no laser' argument.

Focused radiation is still radiation and the amount of energy it emits depends on the power source it is being fed from. A star gives off magnitudes more energy than the junk ships the Enterprised face.

[Batman]

Focused radiation is still radiation and the amount of energy it emits depends on the power source it is being fed from. A star gives off magnitudes more energy than the junk ships the Enterprised face.

That's his/her point dumbass. If the ship is immune to lasers then why pray tell is sitting close to a star a problem? After all they're immune to at least part of the EM spectrum no matter what according to the no lasers argument.

[Soontir C'boath]

Focused radiation is still radiation and the amount of energy it emits depends on the power source it is being fed from. A star gives off magnitudes more energy than the junk ships the Enterprised face.

That's his/her point dumbass. If the ship is immune to lasers then why pray tell is sitting close to a star a problem? After all they're immune to at least part of the EM spectrum no matter what according to the no lasers argument.

What the fuck are you thinking? I never disputed that, you idiot.

Did you even read this line?

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

As if saying lasers would be more powerful than a fucking star and goes on how a power hose (laser) would be powerful than a shower (star). Now if I read that wrong then I concede but that's how I see it.

[Soontir C'boath]

Ghetto edit: Batman, I just wanted to reply to his proposed rebuttal. That's all.

[Patrick Degan]

s there any way to compare and contrast Star Wars and Star Trek technology on a more equal playing field?

In a word, no. Just like there's no way to put Trobriand Islander technology and American technology on an even level.

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

Let's get on with it, then...

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).

We have no reason to assume any such thing. Physical law is universal by definition.

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.

Utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. The subject of the debate is a contest between the Federation-as-is, and the Empire-as-is. Guess who gets stomped?

Anyhow, food for thought.

More like junk-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.

Sigh... Very well, for the moment taking you at your word: the problem is that these subjects have been hashed-out more times than anyone can count. If objective analysis truly is your interest, then it's necessary to not make arbitrary assumptions and try to find ways to "fix" the game ahead of time. The two sides bring to the table what they have and that is the only basis for any valid comparison. If that comparison screams "mismatch", that's simply how it would turn out the same way as if you pitted a bunch of Trobriand Islanders with their weapons against a U.S. Marine company.

[Batman]

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

Which is correct in a way. That's the whole point of lasers.

As if saying lasers would be more powerful than a fucking star

Which Sun Wukung never said.

and goes on how a power hose (laser) would be powerful than a shower (star). Now if I read that wrong then I concede but that's how I see it.

You read that wrong alright. Sun says that SINCE Trek ships are vulnerable to the shower (star), they can't be immune to the hose(lasers). I fail to find the part of the post where Sun claims lasers are automatically more powerful than stars.

[Soontir C'boath]

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

Which is correct in a way. That's the whole point of lasers.

As if saying lasers would be more powerful than a fucking star

Which Sun Wukung never said.

and goes on how a power hose (laser) would be powerful than a shower (star). Now if I read that wrong then I concede but that's how I see it.

You read that wrong alright. Sun says that SINCE Trek ships are vulnerable to the shower (star), they can't be immune to the hose(lasers). I fail to find the part of the post where Sun claims lasers are automatically more powerful than stars.

Step by step shall we?

My rebuttal to such a statement would be to point out that a laser is focused radiation and that the sheilds are vunerable to radiation.

Ok, a laser is focused radiation and you agree with that too.

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

Implying that the laser or focused source is stronger than unfocus (the star).

The best analogy is a hose spraying water. The power wash is going to have more punch than, say the shower.

The power wash or the focused source/laser is going to have more punch than the shower (star).

So, who's reading wrong here?

As I said, I only wanted to reply to the rebuttal he thought the "Immune Laser" crowd would say. That's all.

[Batman]

Step by step shall we?

My rebuttal to such a statement would be to point out that a laser is focused radiation and that the sheilds are vunerable to radiation.

Ok, a laser is focused radiation and you agree with that too.

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

Implying that the laser or focused source is stronger than unfocus (the star).

Curious how Sun's quote never mentions the power source for the laser. How do you know it's NOT a star?
The intent was clearly than a focused energy release is more intensive than an omnidirectional one.

The best analogy is a hose spraying water. The power wash is going to have more punch than, say the shower.

The power wash or the focused source/laser is going to have more punch than the shower (star).
So, who's reading wrong here?

Still you I'm afraid. Virtually all of the energy generated by the star is NOT going to hit the starship while all of the energy of the laser beam IS.

[Soontir C'boath]

I retract my last sentence in the previous post, it'd appears that Wukong is speaking for the SW side.

Step by step shall we?

My rebuttal to such a statement would be to point out that a laser is focused radiation and that the sheilds are vunerable to radiation.

Ok, a laser is focused radiation and you agree with that too.

I would also point out that a focused source would be stronger than unfocused.

Implying that the laser or focused source is stronger than unfocus (the star).

Curious how Sun's quote never mentions the power source for the laser. How do you know it's NOT a star?
The intent was clearly than a focused energy release is more intensive than an omnidirectional one.

So my laser pointer is more powerful than a star I presume?

Energy output is clearly needed to extrapulate weapon effectiveness not by whether it is "focused" or not.

The best analogy is a hose spraying water. The power wash is going to have more punch than, say the shower.

The power wash or the focused source/laser is going to have more punch than the shower (star). So, who's reading wrong here?

Still you I'm afraid. Virtually all of the energy generated by the star is NOT going to hit the starship while all of the energy of the laser beam IS.

Of course not, the Enterprise doesn't encompass the entire star after all unless it's some giant Culture ship.

Are you even on the same page?
_________________
Frankly, the ST Laser Immuners would say that the weapons on those ST ships the Enterprise opposed had focused lasers and didn't do jack shit to the Enterprise. How is that going to help the SW arguement by saying it's more focused?

[Batman]

Step by step shall we? Ok, a laser is focused radiation and you agree with that too. Implying that the laser or focused source is stronger than unfocus (the star).

Curious how Sun's quote never mentions the power source for the laser. How do you know it's NOT a star?
The intent was clearly than a focused energy release is more intensive than an omnidirectional one.

So my laser pointer is more powerful than a star I presume?

If it harnesses all the power of a star into the beam then YES IT IS.
Are you being deliberately obnoxious?

Energy output is clearly needed to extrapulate weapon effectiveness not by whether it is "focused" or not.

Hogwash. The energy output of your weapon is irrelevant if little to none of it ever actually hits the target (which happens to be the case for stars vs starships).

Frankly, the ST Laser Immuners would say that the weapons on those ST ships the Enterprise opposed had focused lasers and didn't do jack shit to the Enterprise. How is that going to help the SW arguement by saying it's more focused?

There's no such thing as a (functional) unfocused laser. That's the very point of the bloody things.

[Soontir C'boath]

Curious how Sun's quote never mentions the power source for the laser. How do you know it's NOT a star?
The intent was clearly than a focused energy release is more intensive than an omnidirectional one.

So my laser pointer is more powerful than a star I presume?

If it harnesses all the power of a star into the beam then YES IT IS.
Are you being deliberately obnoxious?

No, I'm sticking with what Wukong wrote. Yes, I know the Imperator's generator is written to be basically a small star but that's not what Wukong wrote.

If he had mentioned the generator in the rebuttal then yes that'd be fantastic but he only mention being "focus" as his arguement of why SW would do far more damage.

Energy output is clearly needed to extrapulate weapon effectiveness not by whether it is "focused" or not.

Hogwash. The energy output of your weapon is irrelevant if little to none of it ever actually hits the target (which happens to be the case for stars vs starships).

It's relevant when it's a ship that's doing the damaging and not a star. No point aiming accurately if you can't make a dent as the ST ships didn't with the Enterprise. Really, where did you read that I said to use a star as an effective weapon? The Enterprise stayed in the Corona for a prolonged amount of time to get its shields widdle down. There's no time for roasting in battle you know.

Look, Wukong basically wrote SW weapons would be more powerful since they're focused radiation unlike the star which could be said the same for the ST ships attacking the Enterprise. Get my point yet?

Frankly, the ST Laser Immuners would say that the weapons on those ST ships the Enterprise opposed had focused lasers and didn't do jack shit to the Enterprise. How is that going to help the SW arguement by saying it's more focused?

There's no such thing as a (functional) unfocused laser. That's the very point of the bloody things.

See above.

[Batman]

Are you being deliberately dense?
Sun said that since Trek ships are vulnerable to unfocused radiation (a star) them being immune to focused radiation (lasers) is garbage.

[Batman]

Energy output is clearly needed to extrapulate weapon effectiveness not by whether it is "focused" or not.

Hogwash. The energy output of your weapon is irrelevant if little to none of it ever actually hits the target (which happens to be the case for stars vs starships).

It's relevant when it's a ship that's doing the damaging and not a star

Indeed there's not. There IS, however, a difference between the energies spent to actually inflict that damage. So how much energy the star actually produces is irrelevant.

Look, Wukong basically wrote SW weapons would be more powerful since they're focused radiation unlike the star which could be said the same for the ST ships attacking the Enterprise. Get my point yet?

As you're making no sense whatsoever, no. Especially as he never said something like that. Again, are you being deliberately dense?

[Soontir C'boath]

Are you being deliberately dense?
Sun said that since Trek ships are vulnerable to unfocused radiation (a star) them being immune to focused radiation (lasers) is garbage.

He said that as much in the first sentence but what he said after was my problem with his rebuttal. He said "I would also point out..." implying he was adding to his arguement in the first sentence which doesn't make sense.

As I said, his added point argued that since SW weapons are focused unlike the star, they're more powerful (which is true given what we know of them) but then it could be turned around to say the same for the ships attacking the Enterprise.

I was only pointing out that Wukong should refine his rebuttal to include energy output of SW weapons to show that they are indeed superior and therefore that ST ships aren't immune.

You're really just focused on his first sentence aren't you?

So, have you stopped looking at the mirror yet?

[Soontir C'boath]

As you're making no sense whatsoever, no. Especially as he never said something like that. Again, are you being deliberately dense?

Look.

ST lasers = focus radiation
Star = Unfocus radiation
SW weapons = focus radiation

Wukong claims focus > unfocus. Except ST and SW equals the same definition which brings a problem since the ST ships couldn't damage the Enterprise.

No mention of a generator that powers as much energy as a star, just that.

Better? Or would you still like to add your own crap that Wukong never wrote of?

[Batman]

As you're making no sense whatsoever, no. Especially as he never said something like that. Again, are you being deliberatey dense?

Look.
ST lasers = focus radiation

Correct.

Star = Unfocus radiation

Correct.

SW weapons = focus radiation

Correct again.

Wukong claims focus > unfocus.

And he's right.

No mention of a generator that powers as much energy as a star, just that.

None is needed.