Trek Fleet counts

[Serafina]

ok first, why would any rational person not use the superweapons it has access to?

One possible reason: because the other side has superweapons too and would probably respond in kind and nobody really wants to go there.

Same reason no nuclear weapon has been exploded in anger since WWII in real life.

Doesn't apply here. Simply due to warp speed and/or range issues (short-range burst in speed aren't useful here), the Federation simply can't threaten the Empire. The Empire has no reason to hold back and can fire away as much as they want.


On that notion - if Picard thinks the Federation can actually take out a Death Star ( ), they could utilize the Galaxy Gun - just as unassailable as the Empires industrial base. It's a solid concept and about as destructive and unstoppable (for the Federation) as a Death Star.

[Junghalli]

Doesn't apply here. Simply due to warp speed and/or range issues (short-range burst in speed aren't useful here), the Federation simply can't threaten the Empire.

I'd say in some scenarios that's debateable. If we assume a portal from Federation territory to somewhere in the vicinity of Coruscant the limitations of warp drive might not prevent them from being able to do some damage.

This is just talking about the propulsion side of things mind you, I'm not saying anything about their ability to actually effectively deliver any superweapons.

[fallendragon]

ok first, why would any rational person not use the superweapons it has access to?

One possible reason: because the other side has superweapons too and would probably respond in kind and nobody really wants to go there.

Same reason no nuclear weapon has been exploded in anger since WWII in real life.

if we only see 14 stardocks why should we assume that there are more?

We shouldn't necessarily, but by the same token why should we assume there aren't? It's a lower limit, nothing more.

umm i got to admit the startrek supers that i remember are all one shot deals, and with the issues do to warp speeds this is more along the line of WWII nukes then POST WWII.

and very true, but just as it is a lower limit does not give cause to invent numbers, though a source with vulcan having stardocks would help the startrek cause vastly as with i belive 2 seriers visiting it (TOS, and ENTERPRISE) that would at least give an idea of how major worlds are defended.

and junghalli that is awefully generous having ST start in the heart of SW terriory

[Serafina]

Doesn't apply here. Simply due to warp speed and/or range issues (short-range burst in speed aren't useful here), the Federation simply can't threaten the Empire.

I'd say in some scenarios that's debateable. If we assume a portal from Federation territory to somewhere in the vicinity of Coruscant the limitations of warp drive might not prevent them from being able to do some damage.

This is just talking about the propulsion side of things mind you, I'm not saying anything about their ability to actually effectively deliver any superweapons.

In that case, you are deliberately stacking the odds for the Federation. No such special circumstances are required for the Empire.
Of course, Trektards to that all the time (no, i'm not talking about you).

If we talk about "a wormhole connect the two Galaxies", then the Federation would be hard-stretched to reach that Wormhole anyway, even if they gain instant knowledge about it's location.
If we talk about "a wormhole connects the two territories", then the wormhole is actually reachable for the Federation, but will still most likely appear somewhere in the SW-galaxy (since the Empire controls most of it).
If we talk about "a wormhole appears right next to their capital planets", the Federation might actually be able to use their superweapon - once. Losing Coruscant would be a big blow, but hardly one the Empire can't take - the same can't be said about Earth.
If we have no wormhole at all, the Federation has even lower chances of doing anything (from "nearly impossible in that timeframe" to "absolutely impossible") while the Empires chances are greatly diminished, but they could make it if they really wanted to. Probably the worst scenario of all of them, given that it makes the confrontation almost impossible to happen in the first place, thereby rendering the scenario moot.

The "territories connected"-option is probably the best. It allows the Federation to engage the Empire, while the Empire doesn't loose the advantage from it's large size. It's the most neutral one, since it doesn't give anyone an advantage due to special circumstances.

[Junghalli]

umm i got to admit the startrek supers that i remember are all one shot deals

There was a Klingon planet(biosphere)-destroying weapon depicted in The Chase that was treated as nothing special; the response to its deployment was "why bother blowing up an uninhabited planet" rather than "OMFG how did they do that!" It looked to me like maybe some kind of chain reaction device though, so it's questionable whether it would do any good against a shielded planet. The trilithium devices were apparently easy enough to manufacture that one guy with the resources of an observatory and a Klingon BoP could manufacture at least two of them. That was provided he had the material though, but I remember it coming up in another thread that trilithium was a warp core waste product or something so it probably wouldn't terribly be hard to get. Soran's weapon might require some sort of processed form, or very large quantities though. It was apparently rare enough he had to steal some from the Romulans to get it.

and with the issues do to warp speeds this is more along the line of WWII nukes then POST WWII.

The undesirability of provoking retaliation in kind could still apply. IF the Federation had something that could blow up the Empire's planets it may not be in the Empire's interests to do anything to encourage them to actually use it, meanwhile it's definitely not in the Federation's interests to do anything to encourage the Empire to use maximum force against it.

and junghalli that is awefully generous having ST start in the heart of SW terriory

In that case, you are deliberately stacking the odds for the Federation.

Yes, it is. On the other hand I think it might make for a more interesting scenario that way, since it somewhat negates the Empire's overwhelming propulsion advantage.

Honestly I'm not a big fan of ST vs SW debates, at least as they're generally done on this site, because I'm of the opinion that the best vs debates are usually the ones where the contestants are fairly even, so the outcome comes down to something other than "well I'm afraid these calculations indicate my side's pew pew guns are 10,000 times more powerful than yours, I guess I win." I think a movie only SW vs ST debate or something like that might be interesting, but 200 gigaton SW vs ST? It's generally just too lopsided to be interesting.

Eh, I'm rambling now...

[Serafina]

Honestly I'm not a big fan of ST vs SW debates, at least as they're generally done on this site, because I'm of the opinion that the best vs debates are usually the ones where the contestants are fairly even, so the outcome comes down to something other than "well I'm afraid these calculations indicate my side's pew pew guns are 10,000 times more powerful than yours, I guess I win." I think a movie only SW vs ST debate or something like that might be interesting, but 200 gigaton SW vs ST? It's generally just too lopsided to be interesting.

I agree with that general notion, as far as stories go. However, for me, debates are about proving a point, not telling a story. I can bend the laws of these universes in a story, as long as it makes for a better story, and all is well - but i can't do that in a debate, because then i would essentially be lying (or just missing the point of the debate). You just can't debate if everyone can bend everything he wants in order to make it "even" or "more interesting".

The above is also a reason why 40K vs SW is a favorite of mine, and why i understand pretty damn well how damning the SW-speed advantage is. 40K and SW are pretty damn even on most accounts. Fleet firepower is similar, with bigger ships of one sides and more bang per volume on the other and a numerical advantage. Ground battle is pretty even, with the better troops and numerical advantage on one side, but higher firepower and mobility on the other. Size and scope are pretty even, with similar numbers of worlds and industrial output, with the possible exception of ships.
But in a honest debate, SW wins pretty much by default, since their speed advantage allows them far greater fleet concentrations and thereby orbital supremacy. We can still have ground battles due to "political reasons", but i comes a "because it's more fun that way"-point, and as i said above that's not always a good thing.

A story between the two would be a lot of fun if the speed advantage was reduced or at least fleet concentration prevented, which can be done by various means. You can do that for SWvsST as well, but you need to deviate much more.
But in the end, a good story is about characters anyway, so no one gives a damn if you break the rules to tell a good story about them. In debates, that's not the case and many people give a damn.

[Connor MacLeod]

Honestly I'm not a big fan of ST vs SW debates, at least as they're generally done on this site, because I'm of the opinion that the best vs debates are usually the ones where the contestants are fairly even, so the outcome comes down to something other than "well I'm afraid these calculations indicate my side's pew pew guns are 10,000 times more powerful than yours, I guess I win."

Why should the numbers be the problem? I see this argumen touted around all the time but I never see an actual justification for it aside from "it makes other factors irrelevant." If one is interested in an objective, thorough look at the debate, one isnt going to look at just a part of it. Indeed, looking at a part of it is ALWAYS going to be meaningless because sci fi analysis (as imprecise as it is by nature) is still incredibly complicated (a fact which always makes me laugh over the hard sci fi "prediction" stuff.. how the hell can ANYONE accurately predict the future?)

There's also simply the fact that VS debating by nature is poisonous to the concept of actual analysis. Most debates lack the time, patience, knowledge, comprehension or inclination to bother doing a decent job of it, and would either rely on other people's word or half assed calcs or arguments rather than looking at the bigger picture.

I think a movie only SW vs ST debate or something like that might be interesting, but 200 gigaton SW vs ST? It's generally just too lopsided to be interesting.

Eh, I'm rambling now...

How exactly will "movie only" work? The movies dont' give us nearly enough information to go on (territory size, military size, etc.) for the Empire, unless you want to go by the DS, in which case the sheera mounts of mass and energy they can work with pretty much lead to the same conclusion. But evne then it still won't work because you have to infer from the movies, and thats an open invitation to nitpicking (which is what 90% of vs debates break down into anyhow, either over semantics of specific quotes or nitpicking over whether the effects are reliabile or not or something equally retarded.)

[fallendragon]

forgot about the biosphere one my bad.

trilithium devices ... ya needed to steal form the romulans which makes deployablity interesting

"The undesirability of provoking retaliation in kind could still apply"
ummm since when has the empire given a flying fuck ?? and that still ignores the difficultly of deploying startrek superweapons.

i am of the opinion that you throw them together and see where the chips fall personally... then again i love both so i don't care that much who wins

and Serafina, where did you get the numbers for 40k as that has been something i have yet to see

[Serafina]

and Serafina, where did you get the numbers for 40k as that has been something i have yet to see

Loads and loads of analyses. Done quite professionally and conclusively, worth a read - tough quite long.

[Junghalli]

I agree with that general notion, as far as stories go. However, for me, debates are about proving a point, not telling a story.

Eh, I guess we just have different perspectives on vs debating. For me, the appeal is all about playing out an interesting scenario, and curbstomps generally aren't very interesting. "X wins overwhelmingly, Y has no chance whatsoever, end of story". I've never really seen the appeal of discussing that kind of scenario for the most part.

I can bend the laws of these universes in a story, as long as it makes for a better story, and all is well - but i can't do that in a debate, because then i would essentially be lying (or just missing the point of the debate). You just can't debate if everyone can bend everything he wants in order to make it "even" or "more interesting".

Sure you can, you just have to make sure everybody plays by whatever rules you've picked. We do this in regular vs debates anyway. Trekkies can't bring up stuff from the Trek novels because they aren't canon, but canon is ultimately pretty much arbitrary.

Why should the numbers be the problem?

Because I just don't find them all that interesting. To be more precise, I just don't find them that interesting when they're spoonfed to you from a tech manual or from debates that have already gone over the same ground ten times before (figuring them out for yourself can be somewhat entertaining). It becomes like Bible debating or something, where people are just quoting stuff at each other, and I don't find that very interesting.

It's a pretty subjective thing, so if you enjoy that kind of thing I don't think there's much point in arguing about it.

There's also simply the fact that VS debating by nature is poisonous to the concept of actual analysis. Most debates lack the time, patience, knowledge, comprehension or inclination to bother doing a decent job of it, and would either rely on other people's word or half assed calcs or arguments rather than looking at the bigger picture.

Yeah, you've got a good point there. I've complained about this myself on more than one occassion.

How exactly will "movie only" work? The movies dont' give us nearly enough information to go on (territory size, military size, etc.) for the Empire, unless you want to go by the DS, in which case the sheera mounts of mass and energy they can work with pretty much lead to the same conclusion. But evne then it still won't work because you have to infer from the movies, and thats an open invitation to nitpicking (which is what 90% of vs debates break down into anyhow, either over semantics of specific quotes or nitpicking over whether the effects are reliabile or not or something equally retarded.)

Yeah, that's a pretty good point, I don't think movie only would work very well because there just isn't enough to go on. Maybe make it no tech manuals or other fluff on either side, just the actual stories.

ummm since when has the empire given a flying fuck

If they can win at the cost of having of huge numbers of civilian deaths vs winning without them the latter generally makes more sense. Although I wouldn't put it past Palpatine to actually want unnecessarily big civilian casualties on his own side for some reason. That really comes down to the specifics of the scenario though - my point was it's possible to imagine a scenario where rational people would have superweapons but not use them, not that this would necessarily be the case.

[fallendragon]

and Serafina, where did you get the numbers for 40k as that has been something i have yet to see

Loads and loads of analyses. Done quite professionally and conclusively, worth a read - tough quite long.

thanks i will have to check them out, i am mainly using the codexs in my debates right now

@junghall then you just have to be careful which groups are facing off as to deny the use of things to make it more "fair" is well dishonest

and i still don't see a reason for the empire not to use the superweapons, even the weaker ones like the death stars. trek super weapons don't have enough range or speed to be a threat and the empire has never to my knowledge shown ANY concern for enemy civilian casulties.

[Junghalli]

@junghall then you just have to be careful which groups are facing off as to deny the use of things to make it more "fair" is well dishonest

I don't see what's inherently valuable in such "honesty". Vs. debates are ultimately about having fun, if deciding to exclude certain materials from consideration makes it more entertaining I don't see the problem. Honestly the idea that we should be honor bound to try to determine the "full facts" as if this is a courtroom or board of inquiry strikes me as taking the whole thing way too seriously. So what if the results are skewed? If anybody cares they can just do the debate again but this time allow whatever evidence was inadmissable in the first one*.

* With ST vs SW this isn't even an issue anyway: the conventional debate has already been done to death.

and i still don't see a reason for the empire not to use the superweapons, even the weaker ones like the death stars. trek super weapons don't have enough range or speed to be a threat and the empire has never to my knowledge shown ANY concern for enemy civilian casulties.

I'm not entirely sure about trilithium torpedoes being no threat; the one Soren shot from Veridian III got to the sun in seconds, which if we assume a sun-like star is some pretty crazy speed (definitely FTL, I guess the torpedo had a mini warp drive). That doesn't strike me as exactly easy to intercept. I suppose the planet could have orbited a red dwarf or something but as I remember the scene when Picard was building a grave for Kirk was during the evening so it didn't appear to be tidelocked. Anyway, honestly I'm not really interested enough in the subject to argue about it.

Edit: I just remembered, the light from the star dying got to the planet in seconds too, so it was definitely a lot closer to the star than Earth! Probably can't be more than .01 AU or so. I can't believe I forgot that! Still, the sun wasn't completely covering the sky, and even Teegarden's Star would be the better part of 100,000 km across, so we're probably still talking fairly decent distance (hundreds of thousands of km), so we're probably still at least talking relativistic speed and some pretty crazy acceleration if it's STL.

It doesn't really matter in the end because the Empire doesn't need superweapons to win. In fact in an all-out war the whole firepower debate is just a sideshow; the Empire stomps the Federation because it's a lot bigger and has much greater strategic speeds, 200 GIGATONS!!! just makes an already severe mismatch much worse.

[Picard]

ok first, why would any rational person not use the superweapons it has access to? if we only see 14 stardocks why should we assume that there are more? ummm EU is cannon you have enough sense to know this right? next would you mind providing proof of the Startrek firepower and energy production claims?

We see what we see, but in case of Utopia Planitia I think it is clear that camera did not show entire shipyard. And EU is canon as long as it does not contradict G-canon (on this forum, at least) but we have to analyze G-canon first to see if there is contradiction in first place.

As for Star Trek:
Energy production:
"In "True Q"[TNG6], we hear the following exchange occur in Engineering:
Amanda: "It's hard to imagine how much energy is being harnessed in there."

Data : "Imagination is not necessary; the scale is readily quantifiable. We are presently generating 12.75 billion gigawatts per . . . "

"Anything" here can stand for volume etc (it can't for mass beacouse, since it is M/AM reaction, energy gained from mass is always E=mc^2).

12.75 billion GW is 1.275 x 10e19 joules per second, which translates into 141.86 kilograms of fuel annihilated. Ultra-dense deuterium has density of 140 kilograms per cubic centimeter. Coincidence? I don't think so.

With that, we can calculate total output of E-D warp core to be 5.84 x 10e24 W or 5.84x10e12 TW (5 840 000 000 000 TW or 5 840 000 000 PW).
"

We know that Star Wars uses fusion reactors for power production. I am unable to quickly find possible efficiency of fusion reactors (It's all experimental right now, I think) but for natural fusion... Inside Sun 597 million tons of hydrogen fuses into 593 million tons of helium every second, which means that efficiency should be 0.67 %. Efficiency of M-AM reaction is 100% assuming every particle collides with its antimatter equivalent.

As for firepower, we see several events that point out to high ST firepower:
VOY: "Rise" - ~15-20 Gt torpedoes
TNG: "Skin of Evil" - 500 Mt to 9.83 Gt based on air blast/shockwave; 87 to 144 Gt based on fireball (values by Wong's calculator)
There are several other possible events which I did not calculate due to somehow contradictory data.

On that notion - if Picard thinks the Federation can actually take out a Death Star ( ), they could utilize the Galaxy Gun - just as unassailable as the Empires industrial base. It's a solid concept and about as destructive and unstoppable (for the Federation) as a Death Star.

If they have it, why was Death Star such big deal then?

How exactly will "movie only" work? The movies dont' give us nearly enough information to go on (territory size, military size, etc.) for the Empire, unless you want to go by the DS, in which case the sheera mounts of mass and energy they can work with pretty much lead to the same conclusion.

Movies and novelizations, in which case we might have enough data to actually calculate size of Imperial fleet.

[Serafina]

If they have it, why was Death Star such big deal then?

That doesn't actually matter, since both existed and were built by the Galactic Empire.
Of course, you are just looking for an excuse to handwave it away, since you can't deal with it rationally.

Movies and novelizations, in which case we might have enough data to actually calculate size of Imperial fleet.

Okay, then we will go by TNG only for Trek too. Or just the ST-movies, or everything but DS 9, or without TOS, or...
Do you get it? The only rational policy here is going by the official canon policies, since those essentially define what the "Star Wars Universe" or "Star Trek Universe" are. If you go by anything else, you are essentially making it up.

But again, even if we go only by the movies, you will still get crushed. You have done nothing to refute the "Death Star Hit&Run"-strategy. Just going by the original trilogy (and that's as purist as you can get) is more than enough to crush the Federation.

[Picard]

Okay, then we will go by TNG only for Trek too. Or just the ST-movies, or everything but DS 9, or without TOS, or...
Do you get it? The only rational policy here is going by the official canon policies, since those essentially define what the "Star Wars Universe" or "Star Trek Universe" are. If you go by anything else, you are essentially making it up.

And what about George Lucas commenting that EU is separate from "his" universe?

But again, even if we go only by the movies, you will still get crushed. You have done nothing to refute the "Death Star Hit&Run"-strategy. Just going by the original trilogy (and that's as purist as you can get) is more than enough to crush the Federation.

And how often can Death Star jump? How close to planet it can jump? Is superlaser pure DET or not? How big DET component of superlaser is if it is not pure DET? How fast it can recharge superlaser for planet-killing shots (not ones from RotJ which were barely enough to obliterate Rebel cruisers)? How fast Federation fighters can attack it (probably several minutes)? You do understand that we don't know enough to make even educated guess? Superlaser may need days, weeks, or minutes to recharge. Death Star may or may not be able to exit hyperspace in range of planet. Federation planetary shields may or may not be able to stop superlaser (depends on third question). All of that matters. And we don't know it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I love this guy. He states that he can't find proper data for fuson reactors, because it's still experimental, but he then assumes 100% effeciency for Trek warp cores. If we assume that for Trek, why not assume 100% effeciency for SW fusion reactors? Assuming, ofc they work like our ones do.

It has been stated, though I cannot remember where (it might have been the Death Star novel) that the DS1 required 24 hours to recharge from a full-power shot. How much of the blast is DET is irrelevant, it still vapes planets from a very long range (several light-seconds I believe)

Federation fighters also would not know of the weakness in the DS1. This all assumes that its the DS1 not the DS2 or even a new improved DS3.

The DS2 was stated to be "fully armed and operational" by the Emperor, and also "more powerful than the first Death Star" in the opening crawl. More powerful shots is overkill, but bigger size = bigger reactors = faster recharge time. As far as I know, the shots fired in ROTJ were full-power shots. But hey, even if it's 0.1% power, it would STILL have enough energy to blow a planet apart. Face it moron, the Federation would just go squish. They might even surrender after the first planet goes boom

[Serafina]

And what about George Lucas commenting that EU is separate from "his" universe?

Oh, yeez, yet more standard Trektard-bullshit. At least you have the excuse of having a pitiful grasp of the english language.
First of all, that statement doesn't matter, since it did not result in any change of LucasArts canon policy.
Second, that statement was just an explanation of the canon policy - that G-canon can override everything else.

And how often can Death Star jump? How close to planet it can jump? Is superlaser pure DET or not? How big DET component of superlaser is if it is not pure DET? How fast it can recharge superlaser for planet-killing shots (not ones from RotJ which were barely enough to obliterate Rebel cruisers)? How fast Federation fighters can attack it (probably several minutes)? You do understand that we don't know enough to make even educated guess? Superlaser may need days, weeks, or minutes to recharge. Death Star may or may not be able to exit hyperspace in range of planet. Federation planetary shields may or may not be able to stop superlaser (depends on third question). All of that matters. And we don't know it.

The Death Star, or any other Star Wars ship, has never shown of having a recharge time for jumps. The only limit is calculating the travel path, which is not an issue here since you can do that previously.
There is no evidence that the Death Star is anything but a DET-weapon. That also answers the next question - 100% DET. You certainly can't claim that it only carries a very small amout of DET and that the rest is a chain reaction, since we don't see that.
The Superlaser has a maximum recharge rate of 24 hours, since the time between the destruction of Alderaan and the attempted destruction of Yavin IV happened within the same day. It's reasonable to assume that that recharge time was massively reduced for the second Death Star, since it was far larger.
There is no evidence that the Death Star (or other ST-ships) can NOT exit Hyperspace within firing range of a planet. In the case of Yavin IV, they simply had something else in the way.

And again, fighters don't matter. They wouldn't know the weakness of the first Death Star, and the second Death Star doesn't even HAVE that weakness. I have told you that repeatedly, you are apparently too dumb to listen.

You may not know these things because you lack intelligence, observation skills and common sense. However, they are obvious to any intelligent observer.

As for your claim that ST-shields can resist the Death Star Superlaser:
Let's assume that the superlaser only carried 0.0001% DET (that's 1/1000000, one in a million). Furthermore, let's assume that the Death Stars destruction of Alderaan was observed (filmed) time-lapsed (that it was actually slower than what we saw). And last but not least, let's assume that the Superlaser of the second Death Star was no more powerful than that of the first Death Star.
Then the DET-component of the Superlaser is still 50 billion megatons, or 50 million megatons, or 50.000 teratons, or 50 petatons.
That's an absolute minimum - you can't possibly completely destroy a planet with less. That's still many orders of magnitudes more powerful than any of your wanked ST-numbers.

There is NO WAY a ST-planetary shield can stop that amount of firepower. Even if we assume that it was almost completely a chain reaction, and that the destruction of Alderaan didn't happen in real time - in other words, if we grant you every possible concession.

Even under the most favorable assumptions, pure G-canon can utterly annihilate Star Trek. ST can't possibly stop such an attack, which can destroy at least one Federation planet every day.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Picad has almost driven me to give up on the debate, as he just denies everything cannon for SW and pulls numbers out his arse for ST. It no fun arguin against a wall of ignorance. It's like playing tic tac toe against yourself.

Surely he has done something bad enough to warrant moderator action by now?

[Serafina]

Picad has almost driven me to give up on the debate, as he just denies everything cannon for SW and pulls numbers out his arse for ST. It no fun arguin against a wall of ignorance. It's like playing tic tac toe against yourself.

Surely he has done something bad enough to warrant moderator action by now?

Well, he can't possibly deny the original trilogy (IV-VI). Nor can the energy released by the Death Star possibly be less than what i stated above. Of course, he could claim that just one trillionth (or whatever) was actually DET - which makes you wonder why they needed a moon-sized battle-station to produce such a relatively small amount of energy.
And of course, he is already trying to pull stuff out of his ass regarding the Death Star - such as "it can't exit Hyperspace near a planet", or "it needs weeks to recharge", or his complete ignorance of the fact that the second Death Star did NOT have a convenient weak spot to shoot at.

It's actually fun to watch him squirm. He must know that he has no real refutation for the Death Star, and that the has to make up absolutely outlandish claims in order to pretend that he has.
So stay on it - that Trektard might actually get his wall of ignorance get blown apart.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Will do. Now that I think about it, I always wanted to join a trektard hunt, having read so many good ones from the good old days

The "can't exit hyperspace near a planet" thing, I think that might be him misinterpreting the "can't jump in a gravity well" thing which in the EU is endemic to all hyperdrives. In fact, IIRC in "The Final Prophecy" Nen yim considers a hyperjump deep in Coruscant's gravity well, to the alarm of Corran Horn.

Ofc by Picard's logic we can ignore the EU It doesnt matter anyway because of the DS weapon range

I'd like to see him provide evidence for his wonderfully absurd idea that Feddie attack fighters could take out the DS like Luke and his x wing did.

[Serafina]

If we go by the movies alone, we never see any problems with exiting hyperspace close to a planet. Look at the range Jango Fett dropped out of hyperspace in AotC - the planet was already quite visible. There is no evidence to suggest that the Death Star would have to drop out of hyperspace any further out, and even if - we saw the range from which the Death Star was firing at Alderaan.

He is not only making shit up, he is also ignoring evidence. Of course, he has to, because he can't admit defeat.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Which of course means the debate will never end. He'll just keep dragging it out. Oh well, that at least means he'll make more amusing posts for me to laugh at

[fallendragon]

umm Serafina, any perticular reason for the lack of sun crushers/ world devastators?

and i am assuming centerpoint station isn't allowed right?


and picard, then what is the reason enterprise couldn't destory the astriod (as mentioned in vong's site)? and how do you know it isn't per fuel cell or other volume?


oh and for the star wars side, what happens if star trek is willing to risk the effects of warp 10?

[Serafina]

umm Serafina, any perticular reason for the lack of sun crushers/ world devastators?

The former is actually considered lost technology. The latter are simply not needed.

and i am assuming centerpoint station isn't allowed right?

Given that it's not particulary mobile, it's not really a good offensive weapon.
And again, not needed, the Death Star is all the Empire needs.

[fallendragon]

umm Serafina, any perticular reason for the lack of sun crushers/ world devastators?

The former is actually considered lost technology. The latter are simply not needed.

and i am assuming centerpoint station isn't allowed right?

Given that it's not particulary mobile, it's not really a good offensive weapon.
And again, not needed, the Death Star is all the Empire needs.

really when did it get declaired lost technology? (and when is this empire basied on anyway?)

and are we talking about the same centerpoint station?