Trek ships that could stand up to Wars ships.

[Crossroads Inc.]

SO aside from Time Travel cheats, after 3paes of thread have we come up with a single Trek ship that could stand up to a Wars shps through raw power?

Maybe if we we make things more sporting...

Can a ny trek ship stand up to:

Correlian Corvette
Carrack Cruiser
Old Republic Dreadnaught
Victory Star Destroyer.
ISD.

?

[Ryan Thunder]

Doubtful. I mean, Imperial starfighters carry weapons powerful enough to damage even the most heavily-shielded Trek starships, unless I'm mistaken.

[Batman]

Given that at least AQ capships regularly fall to midrange KT omnidirectional photorps, it's conceivable that Wars fighters in squadron strength or up could kill them with GUNFIRE.

[Ryan Thunder]

Given that at least AQ capships regularly fall to midrange KT omnidirectional photorps, it's conceivable that Wars fighters in squadron strength or up could kill them with GUNFIRE.

Yikes! I realize they got nothing on Imperial ships anyways, but didn't Wong figure that capital ship phasers were something like 7 MT per second?

When did the torps become so weak?

[Batman]

TNG, 'Pegasus'. The yield for the PTs works out as about 450KT or thereabouts. Incidentally, those are Mike Wong's numbers, too.
Where are you getting HIGHER PT yields from, and where did Mike Wong peg phasers at 7 MT/sec?

[Ryan Thunder]

The main website.

Their phasers appear to induce some kind of chain reaction in matter. Against shields, they seem to be tactically equivalent to lasers in the range of 30,000 TW (7 megatons per second). Against dense armour, their effectiveness is much lower, in the 1-10TW range (1 kiloton per second). A typical starship has only a handful of phaser arrays.

Sure, its against shields, but we all know that once those go down its all over anyways. And since that's supposed to be their effectiveness against shields, one would have to assume that the shields can take that sort of punishment.

Their torpedoes are their heaviest weapons, with an upper limit of 64 megatons for photon torpedoes and roughly twice that for quantum torpedoes. In fact, some significant battles have been fought exclusively with torpedoes. They are capable of superluminal speeds when launched from a warp-driven starship, thus making them useful for long-range first-strike actions and surprise attacks. They have good acceleration and guidance systems, but limited maneuverability.

At any rate, this should suffice;

Their capital ship shields can survive prolonged exposure to intense solar radiation, as well as direct hits from multi-megaton nuclear or antimatter weapons. They lack planetary shields, so they rely on orbital defense platforms and interceptors to safeguard their citizens.

[Ryan Thunder]

EDIT: Ok, the photorp quote says its an upper limit. But nevertheless, I can't think of any occasion in TNG upon which they were used to knock down shields.

Mind you, I haven't watched that much, either...

[Batman]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

[Batman]

EDIT: Ok, the photorp quote says its an upper limit. But nevertheless, I can't think of any occasion in TNG upon which they were used to knock down shields.

You're kidding me, right?

Mind you, I haven't watched that much, either...

Apparently so.

[Starglider]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

Whereas you're assuming that Riker's dialogue is correct, and we all know Trek dialogue is hopelessly unreliable. He could well be overestimating the toughness of the asteroid by an order of magnitude or two. Pro-wars debaters are perfectly willing to ignore Trek dialogue left right and centre when it suits them to do so, so I can't regard the Pegasus quote as definitive.

[Ryan Thunder]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

Eh. I'd lay the blame for that on Wong, then. I was under the impression that the main site was accurate...

[Darth Ruinus]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

Eh. I'd lay the blame for that on Wong, then. I was under the impression that the main site was accurate...

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/WhatsNew.html

Missed that page did you?

[Ryan Thunder]

So he didn't update it for a couple years. Why should I assume anything's changed? Not to sound asshole-ish or whatever, but I mean, he's got time to post, why wouldn't he update the site if there's a significant change like that?

[Darth Ruinus]

So he didn't update it for a couple years. Why should I assume anything's changed? Not to sound asshole-ish or whatever, but I mean, he's got time to post, why wouldn't he update the site if there's a significant change like that?

Hes got time to post, so he should update the site? Well for one thing, it would be useless of him to update the site, since all that will do is show is that Trek is STILL way, way, way weaker than Wars.

That and reading someones post and simply responding to them (this is my opinion, dont know how much it takes for him to do math, probably not much) is going to be a lot less time consuming than watching shows over again and making new calculations based on them.

[Ryan Thunder]

True.

But nevertheless, now I'm reduced to quoting a forum instead of a website. For some reason that just feels a lot less reputable (when dealing with intelligent people this would be irrelevant, but, well--yeah...), but whatever, it'll have to do.

[Darth Ruinus]

True.

But nevertheless, now I'm reduced to quoting a forum instead of a website. For some reason that just feels a lot less reputable (when dealing with intelligent people this would be irrelevant, but, well--yeah...), but whatever, it'll have to do.

You could, you know, still quote him on the firepower figures of Wars ships (unless those are outdated too?) or you can quote the site on other stuff, like the references to books, the good ol' logic (the Territorial Holdings page and the Hyperdrive page) and other such parts.

And the cals on this forum, why wouldnt you quote them? If they look and sound right, and coming from knowledgable people, they probably are right. (the math and science sometimes used here is beyond me )

[Stark]

So he didn't update it for a couple years. Why should I assume anything's changed? Not to sound asshole-ish or whatever, but I mean, he's got time to post, why wouldn't he update the site if there's a significant change like that?

There's a whole update page with a big fat date on it, and each page is dated.

[Ryan Thunder]

So he didn't update it for a couple years. Why should I assume anything's changed? Not to sound asshole-ish or whatever, but I mean, he's got time to post, why wouldn't he update the site if there's a significant change like that?

There's a whole update page with a big fat date on it, and each page is dated.

I can see that. But its moot anyways, obviously the forums are now the source for the most up-to-date stuff, rather than the main site.

[Crossroads Inc.]

[quote="Ryan Thunder] can see that. But its moot anyways, obviously the forums are now the source for the most up-to-date stuff, rather than the main site.[/quote]Why must you sully My thread with quotes like this?

Some things do not always need updating.

That said. I lay bets that the Voth City ship can take out at the Least a Carrak Cruiser.

<_<
>_>

[Stark]

I can see that. But its moot anyways, obviously the forums are now the source for the most up-to-date stuff, rather than the main site.

It's 'moot' that you used an obviously out of date page on an obviously out of date site and then got cranky and blamed the site maintainer when it was pointed out that they were out of date?

If you don't research your sources, how are you any better than the tards we get floating around who just say 'Darkstar says neener neener'? Analysis and research is required, and a bit more than 'I skimmed this page for numbers without bothering to examine the methodology, the assumptions and sources used, or the FUCKING DATE'.

[Darth Ruinus]

I can see that. But its moot anyways, obviously the forums are now the source for the most up-to-date stuff, rather than the main site.

It's 'moot' that you used an obviously out of date page on an obviously out of date site and then got cranky and blamed the site maintainer when it was pointed out that they were out of date?

If you don't research your sources, how are you any better than the tards we get floating around who just say 'Darkstar says neener neener'? Analysis and research is required, and a bit more than 'I skimmed this page for numbers without bothering to examine the methodology, the assumptions and sources used, or the FUCKING DATE'.

Though to be fair much of the info on the main site is still usefull, I didnt know it was out of date for a while either, and still found most of that info usefull, so it might not be such a big mistake.

[Ryan Thunder]

I can see that. But its moot anyways, obviously the forums are now the source for the most up-to-date stuff, rather than the main site.

It's 'moot' that you used an obviously out of date page on an obviously out of date site and then got cranky and blamed the site maintainer when it was pointed out that they were out of date?

Perhaps you overestimate my ability to magically determine that a page is out of date without any indication that there was new information leading to a significantly different conclusion.

At any rate, I get the point. I'll be more careful about the currency of my information in future.

[Batman]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

Whereas you're assuming that Riker's dialogue is correct, and we all know Trek dialogue is hopelessly unreliable. He could well be overestimating the toughness of the asteroid by an order of magnitude or two. Pro-wars debaters are perfectly willing to ignore Trek dialogue left right and centre when it suits them to do so, so I can't regard the Pegasus quote as definitive.

I'm not saying it's definite, but unlike s lot of other stuff in Trek it's at least moderately quantifiable. You have a BETTER source for canon photorp yields, by all means educate me.

[Darth Servo]

You DO realize the main page hasn't been updated in AGES and still uses the TNG TM as a canon source.

Whereas you're assuming that Riker's dialogue is correct, and we all know Trek dialogue is hopelessly unreliable. He could well be overestimating the toughness of the asteroid by an order of magnitude or two. Pro-wars debaters are perfectly willing to ignore Trek dialogue left right and centre when it suits them to do so, so I can't regard the Pegasus quote as definitive.

I'm not saying it's definite, but unlike s lot of other stuff in Trek it's at least moderately quantifiable. You have a BETTER source for canon photorp yields, by all means educate me.

Nemesis heh, heh, heh.

[Starglider]

You have a BETTER source for canon photorp yields, by all means educate me.

I found this argument pretty convincing, it puts the lower limit on Voyager-era torpedo max yield at about 20MT (+-10MT or so due to scaling issues). Still dialogue dependent to some degree, but much less badly than the Pegasus incident.