Star Trek vs Anything?

[Lord Revan]

well tbh (almost) all Star Trek power lack any sort of decent ground force, so almost any universe with one could defeat them.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The Firefly-verse Alliance could be knocked about without much effort, since they're apparently non-FTL and limited to a small star cluster without much firepower to speak of.

The Feds could beat up the BSG Colonies, but that would be a real fight, since nukes could knock out a few Federation ships. The lack of shields or counter-measures for shielded torpedoes will mean their defeat, however.

The B5 Younger Races would be beaten like red-headed stepchildren, including the Minbari (witness the Minbari flagship and two supporting vessels being annihilate by 2 megatons of explosive force), and there is some debate over whether they could defeat the Vorlons or Shadows.

Most every 'hard' sci fi universe, etc.

[Batman]

The B5 Younger Races would be beaten like red-headed stepchildren, including the Minbari (witness the Minbari flagship and two supporting vessels being annihilate by 2 megatons of explosive force),

That was 4 megatons, thank you very much, and at least per ItB it was just the Black Star, but given those were proximity detonations anyway they WOULD have caught any acompanying craft. And the Black Star was NOT annihilated. It was damaged to the point where it died of secondary explosions.
Given the displayed capabilities of Minbari point defense and the rather leasurely pace PTs tend to move at, I wouldn't rely on being able to actually land hits with them.

[DocHorror]

Given their apparent speed advantage, Trek should be able to handily defeat the colonial government from Aliens, at least in space. The colonials don't appear to have shield technology, which is a major deficiency, and their slow-ass FTL drive means that the Trek powers would have a huge advantage in terms of force concentration and the ability to choose when and where battle takes place.

Mind you, they would get horribly ass-raped on the ground. But the Pajama Boys would get horribly ass-raped by just about anybody on the ground.

Possibly a slight derail, but how fast is Aliens FTL against trek? Didn't the Nostromo expect go from pretty far out in the Galactic rim to Earth in, at most 18 months? Or am I hallucenating?

Or what was the Sulacos distance & response time to LV4-26? How does it compare to Trek speeds?

[Coyote]

I wouldn't sell the neoBSG short in this respect; the Galactica and her fleet can do that bizarre "insta-jump" that is sure to confound the Trek gunners, and I have a hunch the vast umbrella o' flack that the Beast & the Bucket could put out would be sufficient to intercept most photon torpedoes.

Phasers would play hell with the Galacticans; and their (apparent) lack of shields would count against them.

But, like Aliens, if they can lure the fight onto the ground I feel the Colonials would tear their shit up. Also, as we discussed once a long time ago (back in the Tharkun days) that the Federation "troops", long since weaned away from the brutal horror of face-to-face war, would break psychologically if faced with real bloody combat. The Colonials are a bit more inured to the brutality of combat.

I'd wager that the Colonials could fight the Feds to a standstill but not quite overcome them; in the end they'd probably be able to force the Feds to a negotiated settlement.

[ColonialAdmiral]

I wouldn't sell the neoBSG short in this respect; the Galactica and her fleet can do that bizarre "insta-jump" that is sure to confound the Trek gunners, and I have a hunch the vast umbrella o' flack that the Beast & the Bucket could put out would be sufficient to intercept most photon torpedoes.

Phasers would play hell with the Galacticans; and their (apparent) lack of shields would count against them.

But, like Aliens, if they can lure the fight onto the ground I feel the Colonials would tear their shit up. Also, as we discussed once a long time ago (back in the Tharkun days) that the Federation "troops", long since weaned away from the brutal horror of face-to-face war, would break psychologically if faced with real bloody combat. The Colonials are a bit more inured to the brutality of combat.

I'd wager that the Colonials could fight the Feds to a standstill but not quite overcome them; in the end they'd probably be able to force the Feds to a negotiated settlement.

Here is what would happen vs. TOS BSG...

Although I'm not really sure how realistic it is, it was still put together pretty well.

[Uraniun235]

I wouldn't sell the neoBSG short in this respect; the Galactica and her fleet can do that bizarre "insta-jump" that is sure to confound the Trek gunners, and I have a hunch the vast umbrella o' flack that the Beast & the Bucket could put out would be sufficient to intercept most photon torpedoes.

Instant-FTL gives the Colonials a strategic advantage; they can easily outmanuever the Federation fleet and strike targets at will, and easily redeploy to meet a Federation offensive. I am not convinced that the Colonials would use their FTL to immediate tactical advantage, seeing as we have seen so damn little of it from either them or the Cylons.

However, once the Federation figures this out, expect Starfleet to be redeployed to heavily guard the main Federation systems. The outer colonies will suffer - but then again, the Federation is stretched too thinly to really count on defending them even in a "conventional" fight with their neighbors, let alone against instant FTL.

Once the Federation deploys satellite/space-station defense networks around its core worlds, the fleet will begin to move out and do what it can to protect worlds which can't throw up their own defense grids quickly or heavily enough, with an eventual eye towards sending a large battle fleet towards Colonial territory.

Also, I wouldn't count on flak being a 100% effective screen; we've seen several Cylon missiles penetrate the flak field before. I would imagine there would be at least some torpedoes that make it through the field.

[Rye]

The B5 Younger Races would be beaten like red-headed stepchildren, including the Minbari (witness the Minbari flagship and two supporting vessels being annihilate by 2 megatons of explosive force), and there is some debate over whether they could defeat the Vorlons or Shadows.

Most every 'hard' sci fi universe, etc.

"Some debate" my ass, I can't think of a single example in recent trek where a photon torpedo's done anything like 2 megatons of damage.

I mean, check out trek miss 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm0RfUGkS4

Also note in trek stuff is almost always in visual range when they try anything, in b5 a lot of it was cutting between seperate areas because ships were out of visual range. B5 ships also tend to have point defence, the planets have defensive positions also, so it's not as much of a kicking as you portray it.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Possibly a slight derail, but how fast is Aliens FTL against trek? Didn't the Nostromo expect go from pretty far out in the Galactic rim to Earth in, at most 18 months? Or am I hallucenating?

Or what was the Sulacos distance & response time to LV4-26? How does it compare to Trek speeds?

Alien Universe FTL is a little slow compared to Star Trek FTL, though somewhat comparable due to the variation introduced by warp factor.

The Alien Universe Timeline did some rough calculations, and determined that the Nostomo's speed was 0.12 light years per sidereal day, based on a distance of 37 light years (the distance between LV-426 and Earth) and ten months travel time.

In service 57 years later, the Sulaco's speed was calculated as 1.762 light years per sidereal day, based on the same 37 light year distance and three weeks travel time.

For Star Trek, a cruising speed of warp factor five takes two months to travel 40 light years, while the sustainable maximum warp factor 9.2 takes only eight days to travel the same distance.

[OmegaGuy]

sure there's plenty of powers ST could win, just like there's plenty of power that could assrape the Galatic Empire (or any other Star Wars power) so badly that it wouldn't be even close to funny.

But the fact this that Star Trek is not among stronger power in Scifi.

That reminds me, one of the strongest scifi powers I've ever heard of are the "Downstreamers" from Steven Baxter's Manifold: Time. He's the same guy who wrote the Xeelee books, but these guys make the Xeelee look like wimps.

[NoXion]

Doesn't the B5verse also have quite a few ships compared to Trekverse?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Doesn't the B5verse also have quite a few ships compared to Trekverse?

Only if you count all of the younger races together. The Minbari might have as many ships as the federation, but Earthforce would be outnumbered by an order of magnitude at the very least. (Hundreds to thousands or tens of thousands.)

[starfury]

Doesn't the B5verse also have quite a few ships compared to Trekverse?

Wasn't there a debate that settled that the Entire Intersteller Alliance possessed similar Industrial capacity and ships Close to that just the Federation, essantially that the Federation Alone possessed a shipbuilding capabilty similar to the entirer Intersteller alliance.

[brianeyci]

Not Star Trek versus B5 again.

Give it a rest man. If you want hard numbers, Sean Robertson says the TOS phaser does 30 kilotons. That's at least the same order of magnitude as the B5 ships main guns. They fight the same way, mass in a huge wall and concentrate as much firepower as possible. Babtech says nine kilotons per second for an EA shot, and Star Trek ships can resist that for sure, while a single phaser shot at full power would cripple a YR B5 ship. Phaser arrays are omni-directional while several Omegas would have to line their fore towards a Galaxy to take one down. A battle would happen like this: Galaxies and Excelsiors would line up in a wall, and so would the Omegas, but the Omegas would fire their beam weapons straight ahead while the Star Trek capitals could far more easily concentrate their firepower. EA would launch fighters, which wouldn't do anything, and then the Defiants and fighter wings would swarm into the B5 front line, accelerating too fast for the B5 guns to easily track. Unless the EA has White Stars, they'll get devastated like Clarke's Omega-X bathtubs. Once the front lines closed, shields and phasers and the occasional torpedo hit that gets through PD would destroy the EA. Game over.

It is old. If anybody has any new information they'd like to share, go ahead, but please don't make me yawn. The only question mark is highly maneuverable stuff like White Stars, but even then a single EA shot can cripple a White Star, and the Federation's got its own maneuverable ships in Defiant and their own fighters (which don't obey Newtonian physics either so have far higher acceleration and maneuverability and unlike their EA counterparts are shielded.)

If you absolutely have to bring up a dead corpse, Bob is right and at least YR races would be outnumbered unless they all teamed up on the Federation. At most there were several hundred Omegas, not thousands or tens of thousands.

[brianeyci]

Oh yeah, I don't even want to think of the assraping that would happen if a Federation fleet encountered an EA fleet unprepared on any other side other than its front. If the Star Trek battle line ever "crosses the T" then it's game over for the EA. They'll just rake the B5 ships with phasers while the B5 ships engage with weaker non-fixed wing turreted weapons mainly meant for anti-fighter and PD, and try and do a 180 or a 90 that would take an eternity. By the time the EA gets its entire formation rotated around, it'd be game over. And it doesn't even have to happen like that: as soon as the battle lines met and were intermingled, "crossing the T" would happen and EA is finished.

[dragon]

Ok I know there's been several times where fed ships have hit targets at long range but for the most part fight in the hundreds of miles to thousands range. But at what ranges are B5 battles fought at as there ships are quite a bit slower.

[brianeyci]

Trek ships would close to fifty meters and unleash all hell. Their tactics consist of shit like Picard maneuver, and there's a serious drop in firepower at greater rangers. Forget hundred to thousands, more like less than a hundred.

B5 has these cut scenes where they go beyond visual range, but personally I think that's hogwash. The BVR fights IIRC were mostly "Into the Fire" where Shadow and Vorlon ships shot missiles at Drazi. The missiles are so fucking slow moving I can't imagine Trek ships having trouble shooting them down. And even then fighters are in visual range, and the capitals don't engage until they're in visual range. Remember when the Apollo dropped out of hyperspace to shoot at the weapons platform about to devastate the Eastern American Seaboard. It was at point blank range and didn't fire from thousands of kilometers away. When Centauri go after B5, they shoot in visual range. When Centauri go after Narn, they shoot in visual range.

So forget range. For all honest intents and purposes, they are almost the same for both sides, unless people want to cherry pick one example or the other.

[starfury]

Not Star Trek versus B5 again.

Give it a rest man. If you want hard numbers, Sean Robertson says the TOS phaser does 30 kilotons. That's at least the same order of magnitude as the B5 ships main guns. They fight the same way, mass in a huge wall and concentrate as much firepower as possible. Babtech says nine kilotons per second for an EA shot, and Star Trek ships can resist that for sure, while a single phaser shot at full power would cripple a YR B5 ship. Phaser arrays are omni-directional while several Omegas would have to line their fore towards a Galaxy to take one down. A battle would happen like this: Galaxies and Excelsiors would line up in a wall, and so would the Omegas, but the Omegas would fire their beam weapons straight ahead while the Star Trek capitals could far more easily concentrate their firepower. EA would launch fighters, which wouldn't do anything, and then the Defiants and fighter wings would swarm into the B5 front line, accelerating too fast for the B5 guns to easily track. Unless the EA has White Stars, they'll get devastated like Clarke's Omega-X bathtubs. Once the front lines closed, shields and phasers and the occasional torpedo hit that gets through PD would destroy the EA. Game over.

It is old. If anybody has any new information they'd like to share, go ahead, but please don't make me yawn. The only question mark is highly maneuverable stuff like White Stars, but even then a single EA shot can cripple a White Star, and the Federation's got its own maneuverable ships in Defiant and their own fighters (which don't obey Newtonian physics either so have far higher acceleration and maneuverability and unlike their EA counterparts are shielded.)

Sorry for Confusing you Brian, I had long since agreed on the huge Technical Disparity between, I merely wanted to bring up the Point that the Entire Intersteller alliance Fleet in Terms in Numbers can be matched by the Federation alone, as the industrial ablity of the two sides are similar despite the huge disparity in Tech.

[Gustav32Vasa]

well tbh (almost) all Star Trek power lack any sort of decent ground force, so almost any universe with one could defeat them.

I dont remember seeing Starfleet marines figting, only hearing about them. What episode did we see them?

[Uraniun235]

DS9 totally screwed the pooch by showing an incredibly incompetent and ill-equipped pajama-pants brigade in "The Siege of SR-500" (or some similar wacky dehumanized numbered planet to emphasize just what an out-of-the-way shithole the planet was).

[Rye]

Ok I know there's been several times where fed ships have hit targets at long range but for the most part fight in the hundreds of miles to thousands range. But at what ranges are B5 battles fought at as there ships are quite a bit slower.

Look at that 30kt death beam long range accuracy go!

[brianeyci]

Trekmiss was made specifically to answer people saying that Federation ships have perfect accuracy.

If B5 accuracy was good, fighters would not be a problem at all or useful at all. The Federation only started bringing in fighters to take advantage of worse accuracy on their opponents' part -- in Star Trek almost everything's a cruiser and they've got no dedicated carriers. And their "fighters" are 25 meters long, not small pinpricks like starfuries. Star Trek fighters are more like torpedo bombers, and they've really got no fighters of their own smaller than that, because all their fighters are shielded and have warp drives. Acceleration, speed, predictability are the main factors in whether a ship would hit, and the B5 ships are slow, have pathetic acceleration and move in a straight line. Trek does too but I would say B5 capitals moreso. Star Trek is in the battleship age, and B5 is in the fighter age, but B5's fighters suck donkey balls.

The 30 kT figure (9 kT/sec Omega figure both derived by the same respectable man) was derived from Ent-Nil's phaserization of a D7. Even if we take at face value that somehow the technology got worse in the intervening years, it's already enough to hurt B5 ships.

And let me take a moment to personally vent on the stupidity of very low weapons yields claimed on the part of some debators, who seem to want to lower Trek's weapon yields whenever it suits them (not people like Sean but people who claim sub-ton or even less depending on the situation, as if every year Trek gets more pathetic somehow, like retard Fivers who are more insane than Trekkies.) Or whenever a new shitty (why they take shitty movies as an authoritative source is beyond me) movie comes out, as if the new movie erases all the Trek that came before. I can't find the link on the main site, but Mike talks about this on a page. The energy required to actually go into space is tremendous, and the idea that a civilization could not manufacture megaton yield weapons while at the same time traveling the stars is ridiculous.

Variable yields do exist in Star Trek and saying they don't is like saying there's only one kind of turbolaser. I do not particularly care that the technical manual is not canon -- it gives hard figures for the maximum yield of photon torpedoes, which should be tactically equivalent to phasers if both are to be of any use. Of course the real yield is far less due to geometry and efficiency, but I have no problem with hundreds of kiloton torpedoes and matching phasers.

[Batman]

Trekmiss was made specifically to answer people saying that Federation ships have perfect accuracy.
If B5 accuracy was good, fighters would not be a problem at all or useful at all.

Care to explain this one? IF B5 accuracy was PERFECT they wouldn't. Not being able to one-shot kill a small maneuverable target like a fighter does NOT bad accuracy make.
Fighters missing a cruiser-size target that's not fighting back and going in a straight line, THAT's bad accuracy.

The Federation only started bringing in fighters to take advantage of worse accuracy on their opponents' part -- in Star Trek almost everything's a cruiser and they've got no dedicated carriers. And their "fighters" are 25 meters long, not small pinpricks like starfuries. Star Trek fighters are more like torpedo bombers, and they've really got no fighters of their own smaller than that, because all their fighters are shielded and have warp drives. Acceleration, speed, predictability are the main factors in whether a ship would hit, and the B5 ships are slow, have pathetic acceleration and move in a straight line.

Excuse me, have you actually seen B5 fighter or White Star battles?

Trek does too but I would say B5 capitals moreso. Star Trek is in the battleship age, and B5 is in the fighter age, but B5's fighters suck donkey balls.

Which is why it's totally impossible for B5 fighters to hurt and occasionally even kill capital ships. Oh wait.
If I HAD to make an anology, I'd put B5 in the transitional age of late WW2/shortly past that where fighters COULD kill battleships, but only in large numbers.

The 30 kT figure (9 kT/sec Omega figure both derived by the same respectable man) was derived from Ent-Nil's phaserization of a D7. Even if we take at face value that somehow the technology got worse in the intervening years, it's already enough to hurt B5 ships.
And let me take a moment to personally vent on the stupidity of very low weapons yields claimed on the part of some debators, who seem to want to lower Trek's weapon yields whenever it suits them (not people like Sean but people who claim sub-ton or even less depending on the situation

Well it IS sub-ton depending on the situation. That photorp from TFF that didn't even singe Kirk's uniform? To use that as the baseline is however asinine.

, as if every year Trek gets more pathetic somehow,

For quite a while it did, though not WRT to firepower.

like retard Fivers who are more insane than Trekkies.) Or whenever a new shitty (why they take shitty movies as an authoritative source is beyond me)

Because Paramount says they are?

The energy required to actually go into space is tremendous, and the idea that a civilization could not manufacture megaton yield weapons while at the same time traveling the stars is ridiculous.

I agree. Doesn't mean they'll actually build them.

Variable yields do exist in Star Trek and saying they don't is like saying there's only one kind of turbolaser.

Are you sure? It's not like we actually ever see that. Oh wait, we do, all over the place. Ever since freaking TOS. And it's never mentioned on-screen. Oh wait, it is. How can anybody seriously claim Trek DOESN'T have variable yields?

I do not particularly care that the technical manual is not canon -- it gives hard figures for the maximum yield of photon torpedoes,

Which are nevertheless not canon and thus to be ignored, especially as they are NOT supported by onscreen evidence.

which should be tactically equivalent to phasers if both are to be of any use.

Define 'equivalent', please. They can't be ludicrously less powerful because in that case nobody would bother with them and they can't be ludicrously more powerful because in that case nobody would bother with phasers. But an order or so of magnitude difference in firepower is entirely acceptable.

Of course the real yield is far less due to geometry and efficiency, but I have no problem with hundreds of kiloton torpedoes and matching phasers.

Hundreds KT torpedoes we already have thanks to Pegasus. 10s KT phasers work perfectly fine in accordance with that.

[brianeyci]

Care to explain this one? IF B5 accuracy was PERFECT they wouldn't. Not being able to one-shot kill a small maneuverable target like a fighter does NOT bad accuracy make.
Fighters missing a cruiser-size target that's not fighting back and going in a straight line, THAT's bad accuracy.

You know as well as I do that there is no horizon in space. The only way fighters are useful are for specialized tasks, or if accuracy is so terrible they can't be hit. Just because you can't hit a larger ship perfectly, that doesn't necessarily translate into not being able to hit a smaller one, especially in a large fleet battle with jamming or when inferior technology like the Duras's BOP is fighting a ship-of-the-line. Instead of a fighter you could have a cruise missile, or in the case of Trek a larger shielded and more heavily armed ship that isn't really a fighter but a warp capable ship in its own right.

Excuse me, have you actually seen B5 fighter or White Star battles?

I was talking more about capital ships like Omega, or the Narn cruiser, because I don't consider B5 fighters a threat to Star Trek ships at all. I'm perfectly aware that White Stars are maneuverable, but I see no reason to assume they're more maneuverable than a Defiant.

Which is why it's totally impossible for B5 fighters to hurt and occasionally even kill capital ships. Oh wait.

If I HAD to make an anology, I'd put B5 in the transitional age of late WW2/shortly past that where fighters COULD kill battleships, but only in large numbers.

I don't remember any kills by fighters alone, except for exotic ones like ramming. The fighter's role seems to be to saturate their point defenses and interceptors, so that fire from capital ships can penetrate the point defense. In other words, a distraction. I'm looking at this and it appears that the Centauri ship takes minimal damage from the fighters, and doesn't begin to take heavy damage until the station fires. Feel free to correct me, since it's been years.

Well it IS sub-ton depending on the situation. That photorp from TFF that didn't even singe Kirk's uniform? To use that as the baseline is however asinine.

Then why is it there's snorting or derison whenever people mention low kiloton yields or even yields of nuclear weapons. It should be as simple as Star Trek versus Star Wars in Five Minutes.

Because Paramount says they are?

It still doesn't erase the mass of information from before or make it outdated. Authoritative would mean the newer movie was a good baseline representation of Trek, and in most cases it is simply not.

I agree. Doesn't mean they'll actually build them.

It does however put a greater burden of proof of people who claim they have weapons that are only sub-ton or can't even meet the yield of modern nuclear weapons, when there are other possible explanations like variable yield and load time (see below). Spock was well aware that nuclear weapons could be a serious threat to the Enterprise-Nil, so why the hell doesn't the Federation use them? The simplest explanation is that photon torpedoes offer advantages nuclear weapons don't have. If this isn't yield, then it's something else, but the yield has to be at least comparable to make up for the added complexity. And I know you will come back with the insane or stupid explanation, but that is weak.

Are you sure? It's not like we actually ever see that. Oh wait, we do, all over the place. Ever since freaking TOS. And it's never mentioned on-screen. Oh wait, it is. How can anybody seriously claim Trek DOESN'T have variable yields?

What the fuck? I said that there are variable yields and I'm ranting at people who think there aren't, and you come back with a rebuttal that... there are variable yields? If people understand there's variable yields, then why do some insist on bringing up the lowest firepower examples in Star Trek at all, often conditional like TFF or from Voyager where they are low on antimatter?

Which are nevertheless not canon and thus to be ignored, especially as they are NOT supported by onscreen evidence.

No, I will not ignore something that says Star Trek on it just because you say so. The main reason why rigid canon rules are necessary in the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate is because of retards who like to argue every iota of canonicity, but I see no reason to sink to that level (it would bring in stupid shit like "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek!") Paramount canon policy is not the same as continuity, and this house of cards people have created to ignore certain sources like director's comments, technical manuals, notes and so on is ridiculous. It is based on the Star Trek dot com website, and Jon of our forums already indicated how easily he can ask a friend to go and change it, whenever he wants. Star Trek is not Star Wars and there isn't an elaborate system in place to handle contradictions. If it has Star Trek on the label and is official merchandise I assume it's valid to talk about it. Star Trek would be very uninteresting indeed if there was just the live action films in its continuity.

By the way, high kiloton to low megaton torpedoes are not contradicted by on-screen evidence. People have already given theories why the tactical loadout of a torpedo always seems to be so much lower than it full potential. The one I like the most is Mike's. I think he said there was greater danger to loading a torpedo, so you can imagine a logarithmic curve, time to yield. The more powerful the torpedo, the longer it would take to load. So, in a fleet battle when we're taking both sides at their greatest preparedness, the Federation ships would've spent hours loading their torpedoes to full yield, and here come the hundreds of kiloton to megaton torpedoes.

Define 'equivalent', please. They can't be ludicrously less powerful because in that case nobody would bother with them and they can't be ludicrously more powerful because in that case nobody would bother with phasers. But an order or so of magnitude difference in firepower is entirely acceptable.

Hundreds KT torpedoes we already have thanks to Pegasus. 10s KT phasers work perfectly fine in accordance with that.

Torpedoes are omni-directional detonation and unless they fully penetrated their target before exploding, they'd be ghastly inefficient. The difference between a torpedo and phaser could be as big as sticking your hand in an oven and actually grabbing the heating element for a few seconds. The only question is whether torpedoes are megaton and due to their inefficiency are as effective as low kilotons phasers, or if torpedoes are kilotons and as efficient as phasers which are subton. So I believe although there are theoretical differences in their yield, their effective yield should be almost the same.

[Batman]

Care to explain this one? IF B5 accuracy was PERFECT they wouldn't. Not being able to one-shot kill a small maneuverable target like a fighter does NOT bad accuracy make.
Fighters missing a cruiser-size target that's not fighting back and going in a straight line, THAT's bad accuracy.

SNIP

Brian? I was referring to Starfuries repeatedly missing an autopiloted Centauri medium cruiser in 'The Fall of Centauri Prime'

Excuse me, have you actually seen B5 fighter or White Star battles?

I was talking more about capital ships like Omega, or the Narn cruiser, because I don't consider B5 fighters a threat to Star Trek ships at all.

Neither do I. Them pesky shields always get in the way.

I'm perfectly aware that White Stars are maneuverable, but I see no reason to assume they're more maneuverable than a Defiant.

What definition of maneuverable are we working with? WhiteStars can change orientation in seconds, go blasting off in the direction opposite of the one the were going in before in a matter of seconds, have DONE orientation changes in MID-FIRE to keep their main gun on enemy targets as they did so. I can't recall Defiants ever doing that.

Which is why it's totally impossible for B5 fighters to hurt and occasionally even kill capital ships. Oh wait.
If I HAD to make an anology, I'd put B5 in the transitional age of late WW2/shortly past that where fighters COULD kill battleships, but only in large numbers.

I don't remember any kills by fighters alone, except for exotic ones like ramming.

'The Fall of Centauri Prime'. Starfuries kill a Centauri medium cruiser (I can't for the life of me recall the Centauri name of that class but it was the from the front basically cruciform one). Yes, the bloody thing didn't fire back and yes it was travelling in a straight line but they DID have the firepower to take it out.

The fighter's role seems to be to saturate their point defenses and interceptors, so that fire from capital ships can penetrate the point defense.

Which can't do shit about beam weapons anyway.

In other words, a distraction. I'm looking at this and it appears that the Centauri ship takes minimal damage from the fighters, and doesn't begin to take heavy damage until the station fires. Feel free to correct me, since it's been years.

I'm not sure about minimal and further up I've shown fighter to take out a (marginally) capital ship. All throughout B5 fighter are shown to be able to do SOME damage to capital ships. Even if they only blow off gun emplacements that's absolutely worthwhile.

Well it IS sub-ton depending on the situation. That photorp from TFF that didn't even singe Kirk's uniform? To use that as the baseline is however asinine.

Then why is it there's snorting or derison whenever people mention low kiloton yields or even yields of nuclear weapons. It should be as simple as Star Trek versus Star Wars in Five Minutes.

Because people are basically stupid? And because people in vs debates, especially rabid ones, go to any lengths to discredit the other side?
Brian, by now you should know better than that.

Because Paramount says they are?

It still doesn't erase the mass of information from before or make it outdated. Authoritative would mean the newer movie was a good baseline representation of Trek, and in most cases it is simply not.

That's a definition of authoritative I haven't run in before, but you're a native speaker and I'm not. Anyway I agree it DOESN'T erase all the earlier information.

I agree. Doesn't mean they'll actually build them.

It does however put a greater burden of proof of people who claim they have weapons that are only sub-ton or can't even meet the yield of modern nuclear weapons, when there are other possible explanations like variable yield and load time (see below).

Actually, it wouldn't. IF WE NEVER SAW THEM.

Spock was well aware that nuclear weapons could be a serious threat to the Enterprise-Nil, so why the hell doesn't the Federation use them?

Completely irrelevant. If we don't see the Feds use them, there's no reason to assume they have them.

The simplest explanation is that photon torpedoes offer advantages nuclear weapons don't have.If this isn't yield, then it's something else, but the yield has to be at least comparable to make up for the added complexity.

No it doesn't. The Feds may simply be happier with the M/AM solution.

And I know you will come back with the insane or stupid explanation, but that is weak.

As is this rebuttal.

Are you sure? It's not like we actually ever see that. Oh wait, we do, all over the place. Ever since freaking TOS. And it's never mentioned on-screen. Oh wait, it is. How can anybody seriously claim Trek DOESN'T have variable yields?

What the fuck? I said that there are variable yields and I'm ranting at people who think there aren't, and you come back with a rebuttal that... there are variable yields? If people understand there's variable yields, then why do some insist on bringing up the lowest firepower examples in Star Trek at all, often conditional like TFF or from Voyager where they are low on antimatter?

Hooray for people who don't understand that I'M AGREEING WITH THEM THE IDEA IS ABYSMALLY STUPID!

Which are nevertheless not canon and thus to be ignored, especially as they are NOT supported by onscreen evidence.

No, I will not ignore something that says Star Trek on it just because you say so.

I'm not the one saying it. Paramount is.

The main reason why rigid canon rules are necessary in the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate is because of retards who like to argue every iota of canonicity, but I see no reason to sink to that level (it would bring in stupid shit like "It's not Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek!") Paramount canon policy is not the same as continuity, and this house of cards people have created to ignore certain sources like director's comments, technical manuals, notes and so on is ridiculous.

But canon.

It is based on the Star Trek dot com website, and Jon of our forums already indicated how easily he can ask a friend to go and change it, whenever he wants. Star Trek is not Star Wars and there isn't an elaborate system in place to handle contradictions. If it has Star Trek on the label and is official merchandise I assume it's valid to talk about it.

In your personal opinion. NOT in a debate.

Star Trek would be very uninteresting indeed if there was just the live action films in its continuity.

I beg to disagree.

By the way, high kiloton to low megaton torpedoes are not contradicted by on-screen evidence.

What would the evidence for high KT to low MT torpedoes be, then?

People have already given theories why the tactical loadout of a torpedo always seems to be so much lower than it full potential.

And until that full potential is actually DISPLAYED on-screen I couldn't possibly care less.

The one I like the most is Mike's. I think he said there was greater danger to loading a torpedo, so you can imagine a logarithmic curve, time to yield. The more powerful the torpedo, the longer it would take to load. So, in a fleet battle when we're taking both sides at their greatest preparedness, the Federation ships would've spent hours loading their torpedoes to full yield, and here come the hundreds of kiloton to megaton torpedoes.

Which are evidenced by nothing whatsoever. And if it takes you several hours to load a couple dozen kilograms of reactant (the same reactant, I might add, you feed into your Warp cores 24/7) into a torpedo you have a problem right there to begin with.
Oh, and you apparently missed the part where I AGREED torpedoes were a couple hundred KT thanks to Pegasus.

Define 'equivalent', please. They can't be ludicrously less powerful because in that case nobody would bother with them and they can't be ludicrously more powerful because in that case nobody would bother with phasers. But an order or so of magnitude difference in firepower is entirely acceptable.
Hundreds KT torpedoes we already have thanks to Pegasus. 10s KT phasers work perfectly fine in accordance with that.

Torpedoes are omni-directional detonation and unless they fully penetrated their target before exploding, they'd be ghastly inefficient.

Generally agreed with, though I recall SOMEBODY mentioning shaped charge PTs somewhere WRT DS9.