Sci-Fi Power Scale

[dworkin]

Sorry but doesn't work like that.
Verne, 20,000 Leagues under the sea, we have essentially that tech today. (general fiction) Journey to the center of the earth, no tech that was not available to his time let alone ours. (Fantasy) From the Earth to the Moon, IIRC Giant cannon launches to the moon while there have been attempts to launch a payload into orbit with cannons it has yet to be achieved (Science Fiction)

Wells, War of the Worlds, martian tech is not yet buildable in the modern world {though high power laser might = heatray} (Science Fiction) The Time Machine, not possible with modern tech (Science Fiction) The First Men in the Moon, again not possible with modern tech (Science Fiction) The Island of Dr. Moreau, ability to make beast men not yet possible (Science Fiction)

As for the Roy Lewis work I haven't read it so I can't comment yet.
However more to the point is the that if the tech is beneath the low end in the earlier scale or fit at least 3 of the 4 categories in the new one why would you expect that it would end up on the list?

It does work like that you imbecile. Moreau, Nemo, Cavor operate within a Victorian tech base. While their inventions are amazing they are still limited by that base. Moreau gets fairly limited anesthesia for example. Cavor doesn't benefit from a modern tracking network.

What is the Space Combat Rating of Verne's Cannon?
The Ground (or Sea) Combat Rating of the Nautilus?
The FTL Speed of the Time Machine?
The Industrial Capacity of Victorian England?

As for why they should be included. Well, they're SF settings you imbecile. And there's more than you think.

For example, how would Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen do operating in Drake's Civil Government on Bellevue?

[SapphireFox]

Babylon 5 should be above star trek. they have superior FTL engines, the mimbari have insane weapon power levels, the vorlons got mini death stars. plus it all takes place close to the present then star trek, so you got to give them points for advancing fast.

I'm not too sure about that according to this site http://www.b5tech.com/oldb5tech/misctec ... drive.html the best one should expect without a gravitic type drive is around 4565c and with the revised format only earthforce tech is being calculated for at this time.

[SapphireFox]

It does work like that you imbecile. Moreau, Nemo, Cavor operate within a Victorian tech base. While their inventions are amazing they are still limited by that base. Moreau gets fairly limited anesthesia for example. Cavor doesn't benefit from a modern tracking network.

What is the Space Combat Rating of Verne's Cannon?
The Ground (or Sea) Combat Rating of the Nautilus?
The FTL Speed of the Time Machine?
The Industrial Capacity of Victorian England?

As for why they should be included. Well, they're SF settings you imbecile. And there's more than you think.

For example, how would Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen do operating in Drake's Civil Government on Bellevue?

If you believe that they should be included in the chart so strongly then why don't you quantify them for the respective categories and post them for addition to the chart. After all I did state earlier that I was seeking others to do just that for universes they were more familiar with than I.

But honestly, why? What's the point of all this? Attempting to quantify powers under broad generalizations with no allowances made to individual characters, motivations, cultures and established storylines is about as entertaining as throwing two rats in a cage, shooting them up with adrenaline and seeing which one survives. Science fiction is a form of fiction, and fiction has and always will be about compelling characters and storylines, not about who has the biggest penis gun.

I am trying to make a quick comparative fact sheet that might hopefully be something useful not only to myself but perhaps for other debaters as well. Well fiction might be more about the story what you say is more important is not something that quantifies well if at all. This is merely a chart it's not supposed to be a dissertation on literary value.

[Stofsk]

Babylon 5 should be above star trek. they have superior FTL engines, the mimbari have insane weapon power levels, the vorlons got mini death stars. plus it all takes place close to the present then star trek, so you got to give them points for advancing fast.

lolwhut

If you're going to reference the Minbari then I'll reference the Borg; if you're going to reference the Vorlons and other First Ones then I'll reference the motherfucking Q.

Earth Alliance has at most, a couple dozen planets and small fleet sizes (probably dozens as I seem to remember that many Omegas orbiting Mars in 'Endgame') while the Federation has at least a thousand planets and spreading out (Kirk in 'Metamorphosis') and seems to have a fleet size numbered in the hundreds to low thousands (thank you DS9). EarthForce has no artificial gravity, its engines are slow while impulse drives can push up to 1/3 to 1/2 of c, EarthForce has no shield technology (say hello to gamma radiation from all those photon torpedoes), no teleporters, structural integrity magic field, no replicators, and Trek's medical technology exceed it as well. FTL is also shit compared to Warp drive, which too many people seem to disregard for no valid reason I can discern. Only big ships in B5 can generate a jump point, unless you're talking about White Stars and similar high-tech ships which very few people in B5 even have access to; in Trek, a small shuttle has warp drives. Speeds are bit difficult to quantify. IIRC the White Star takes a day or two to get from B5 - which is in Episilon Eridani - to earth, less than a dozen light years away. The same trip done by the Enterprise in TOS at warp factor 8.4 would take less than an hour. (it travelled almost 1000 light years in less than half a day at warp 8.4 in 'That Which Survives' and travelled to the edge of the galaxy three times throughout the show; of course in TNG, the warp speeds were nerfed so that's a different story, but even then they'd be roughly equal with each other)

So yeah, no.

[Star Wars 888]

What is this thread trying to calculate? Technological level? Political enlightenment? Military strength? Size and extent of civilization? Scientific knowledge? Culture? Or a combination of the above?

[Stofsk]

Seems to be a combo but I don't know how it can succeed. There are many different facets of technology in every sci-fi series, so much so that trying to compare them is difficult at best and probably pointless.

adr's comparison above is interesting, M16 would have less energy per shot than a phaser rifle, but does that make it 'weaker'? Compared to what, and with what criteria? It doesn't take a lot of energy to kill a human being, we're pretty fragile all things considered. On the other hand, a modern day rifle needs ammunition, and while phasers do as well they seem to last a lot longer before running out of juice, and have power levels that can do things like stun people or destroy them completely.

[Stark]

Its worse when you look at FTL; the details are arguably more important tactically than raw speeds, and putting a number on it basically ignores things like warmup time, range, sustainability, vulnerability of drive elements, interceptibility, how it scales, requirements for infrastructure, etc. Look at Traveller - its FTL sucks not because of the speed (which is pretty crap) but the laughable range, the poor sustainability, and the giant STL treks required. Look at Dune - it's very fast, but has similar limitations. SAAB doesn't even HAVE FTL and just relies on predicting wormholes!

Singe number = not meaningful. This is how nerds compare (say) military equipment based on top speeds or mechanical ROF without considering actual employment.

[SapphireFox]

I don't expect the final product to be consistent, and what you have here is a portend of things to come.

Ok I'm listening.

Let's take ground power (average) and make the units consistent.

Star Wars: 800 MW (assuming 1 shot per second. source: my ass)
Star Trek: 1.05 MW (The Mind's Eye)
Real Life: 0.05 MW (800 rounds per minute for the M16 * your joule number)

Nitpick: The M16 has a 5.56mm round not the 7.62 that is listed but your point still remains.

So, what does this tell us? Apparently a phaser rifle is worth 20 M16s and a blaster (or is that a tank gun?) is worth 800 phaser rifles.

Tank gun. I don't yet have a good calc figure for an E-11 or the like yet.

But, none of that actually follows. What about a phaser rifle's shots are 20x as "good" as an M16? But why would power define good in the first place? What if the M16 is more accurate, or has a longer range, or is more reliable, or any number of things? What if the M16's method of delivering energy is more efficient than the phaser's? (more concentrated, more armor piercing, hollowpoint, whatever) What if the phaser's ability to magically vaporize people or do wide beams or stuns is useful? What if the phaser weighs less and needs less support for ammo?

Then what do you suggest I do? subcategorize even further to individual weapon types and give a grouped listing giving half of the manufacturer statistics on each weapon? If I tried that the chart would start to grow to being a textbook size thing and not a quick check tool.

This whole exercise is absurd. My method, despite being only semi-serious, would actually give results that are relevant to actual outcomes. (Sort of.) The vs threads, in theory, already debated the relative worth of their tech abilities, reducing it to a black and white result from the starting multi-variable mess. Combining that over hundreds or thousands of threads would smooth over various scenarios (which are almost always the same in a vs thread anyway) and human error inside the threads, and the logarithm of the final number helps to level out popular but uninteresting topics with the rest of the data.

So If I understand you correctly then you are saying that trying to wade though the termanal morass of threads on SDN and compiling the useful data into a single place is something you would like to happen? Also I have pretty much killed the arbitrary number level so unless I am misunderstanding you the logarithm is unnecessary now.

I exaggerated the fallacies and general absurdity of it over there hoping people wouldn't take me too seriously, but I do think it's the best we could actually do to get to the original goal.

Likewise, and I do appreciate the actual help.

[Junghalli]

Universe (Faction)/ Space Combat Max Fp (Source)/ Space Combat Avareage Fp (Source)/ Ground Combat Max Fp (Source)/ Ground Combat Average Fp (Source)/ Max FTL Speed (Source)/ Average FTL Speed (Source)

You know, there's a lot to battlefield performance than just "firepower". Your list completely ignores such crucial factors as speed, reaction time, communications, intelligence-gathering capability, stealth, coordination, skill of leadership etc. A force with inferior firepower but superiority in some of these areas could easily defeat a force with superior firepower.

I think if you're going to try to rank factions in a vs context you'll probably have to do it holistically. Trying to break it up like this is going to give you either a quickly unmanageable number of boxes or a worthlessly shallow analysis (you presently have the latter).

[Junghalli]

Its worse when you look at FTL; the details are arguably more important tactically than raw speeds, and putting a number on it basically ignores things like warmup time, range, sustainability, vulnerability of drive elements, interceptibility, how it scales, requirements for infrastructure, etc. Look at Traveller - its FTL sucks not because of the speed (which is pretty crap) but the laughable range, the poor sustainability, and the giant STL treks required. Look at Dune - it's very fast, but has similar limitations. SAAB doesn't even HAVE FTL and just relies on predicting wormholes!

And then you have universes that have only STL travel. Pre-Man/Kzin Wars Kzin invade Revelation Space, who has better FTL?

[SapphireFox]

Universe (Faction)/ Space Combat Max Fp (Source)/ Space Combat Avareage Fp (Source)/ Ground Combat Max Fp (Source)/ Ground Combat Average Fp (Source)/ Max FTL Speed (Source)/ Average FTL Speed (Source)

You know, there's a lot to battlefield performance than just "firepower". Your list completely ignores such crucial factors as speed, reaction time, communications, intelligence-gathering capability, stealth, coordination, skill of leadership etc. A force with inferior firepower but superiority in some of these areas could easily defeat a force with superior firepower.

I think if you're going to try to rank factions in a vs context you'll probably have to do it holistically. Trying to break it up like this is going to give you either a quickly unmanageable number of boxes or a worthlessly shallow analysis (you presently have the latter).

Holistically? What exactly do you mean by that? Since I doubt you mean like I had it before you probably mean something completely different then what I likely got material for. Please don't tell me you mean some kind of essay format.

[Stofsk]

Holistically as in sitting down and really analysing each thing that makes up a particular piece of technology - like FTL, it's not just important to consider FTL speed, but also range, fuel, how long you can sustain cruising velocity, how quickly you can go to FTL, how rare any element is that makes FTL possible (like dilithium for Trek, or that fuel source the Galactica needs), whether you can intercept a target in FTL or track them or not. That's why we think putting down an arbitrary number where Wars > Trek > BSG is silly, because it actually doesn't tell us anything at all about the FTL systems either of those three series have.

[Junghalli]

Holistically? What exactly do you mean by that? Since I doubt you mean like I had it before you probably mean something completely different then what I likely got material for. Please don't tell me you mean some kind of essay format.

I mean you have to consider all the relevant variables instead of just filling in boxes like "firepower".

I mean consider this scenario:

Guys # 1: basically like a WWII army, but with wanktastically awesome guns and armor.

Guys # 2: their armies are composed entirely of war robots controlled and coordinated by superhumanly intelligent AI, they can make highly autonomous robots down to the size of insects and use these for surveillance, they have coordination and intelligence-gathering capabilities modern armies can only dream of etc. Their guns are weaker though.

The second faction will probably curbstomp the first, but just comparing peak demonstrated firepower feats their shots have X joules you'd reach exactly the opposite conclusion.

[Purple]

In other words, a much better idea would be to simply make a short summary of each universe in writing and attach relevant links for further reading since that might actually prove useful.

[Bakustra]

Also, computing a vertical system of rankings is pretty dumb in and of itself. Consider the Great Old Ones of Lovecraft. They lack spaceflight, but in the case of Cthulhu at least, very few sci-fi powers could do much about them either. So under the system of compiling data, they'd be at the lower end of the list for everything except ground combat or whatever, but would be able to essentially stalemate anybody limited to three spatial dimensions and conventional means of attack. So they occupy a deceptive position. Of course, including the RPGs and whatever probably increases their powers, but do you see what I mean.

EDIT: Or rather, militarily useful spaceflight.

[SapphireFox]

There no winning this one is there. All right Ill keep the info I can gather on each important item i can as a reference but there is no way I can truly combine all that into a single chart. Maybe I will eventually post the multitude of files in one public location for public consumption and comparative analysis. Kind of like the main site.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The only truly unbiased sci-fi vs you can have is that website where they have all the different scifi ships on one big chart.

Edit: This Guy.

[Stark]

YOu mean the mde up numbers where the guy considers his forum consensus more important than primary sources?

[IvanTih]

I think that we have forgot about Downstreamers.

[CaptainChewbacca]

YOu mean the mde up numbers where the guy considers his forum consensus more important than primary sources?

I never saw the forum.