test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
thetanine
Member Posts: 1,367 Arc User
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
A classic debate! Good or Evil? Chocolate or Strawberry? Star Trek or Star Wars (excluding the Death Star)? But unlike those timeless questions this one really does seem to have a compelling answer. And its not what the majority seem to think.
A few necessary caveats (take heed ye trolls):
1) Although it (should) hardly need sayingthese are both completely fictional universes whose technology and scientific foundations are, at best, bolted on after the fact as part of the setting and/or necessary plot devices. This entire debate is like meaningfully debating the combat prowess of Unicorns vs. Dragons. But of course, we're going to do it anyway.
2) The goal is to assume the most favorable interpretations for each technology as demonstrated most coherently by each canon. Obvious mistakes (i.e using parsecs as a measure of time... Hello Han) or figures completely inconsistent with the results offered (Star Destroyers with power generation of 7.75 x 1024 W... only 100 times less than the sun!) will be ignored.
For those crying foul a Star Destroyer that needs that much power (to create the abilities displayed) would represent the most fantastic inefficiency ever conceived. Likewise, some of the energy readings suggested for Star Wars laser weapons would instantaneously vaporize any unshielded craftnot to mention the atmosphere in between themin rather spectacular fashion. Nothing in the physical behavior of these weapons supports these values (for instance that Slave 1 has 64,000 GW lasers or 190 Megaton missiles. Never, in any battle, was a blast of that nature or kind observed).
Bottom line: All weapons and systems should be evaluated on how they actually perform as depicted in the canon as opposed to often innumerate and psuedo-scientific gibberish offered in support of them. That being said, where a vaguely credible explanation has been offered, it will generally be taken (i.e. lasers are lasers).
3) The treatment of technology dramatically complicates the task of comparison. Star Trek consciously attempted to provide at least some basis (however weak or novel) for the science behind their technology. Star Trek represents a technological utopia and was promoting the idea of a better future via modern technology. This is also evident in that the technology of Star Trek advances dramatically over the course of the various seasons (including referencing far future Star Trek timelines with mastery over time itself). Star Wars, on the other hand, makes no such claims and depicts an utterly static technological milieu in which no appreciable advances have been made (save perhaps the Death Star itself) in tens of thousands of years. In addition, Star Wars often offers littleif anyscientific explanation for its tech (Hyperspaceit's fast!). I am assuming the general tech capabilities of Trek as found as late as Voyager.
Now, those out of the way lets get to the point. This is not a close fight. Despite the desires of the many fans, the Star Trek universe is rife with economic, tactical, social, and technological superiority. Claims of Star Wars victories all seem to echo the Stalin-esque view that "Quantity has a Quality all its own." But this is profoundly misguided. Let's break down why.
Economic Factors
Star Wars population is very difficult to assess. Some estimates suggest a 1,000,000 world Empire. But the Galactic Senate depicts a vastly smaller political entity. According to Star Wars Wiki, the Empire was divided into units of 50 systems each with a senator. However, the Senate only has 2,000 members. Which means a galactic polity of 100,000 active members. This is still vastly greater than the Federation with something like 150 members and 1-5 thousand worlds.
However, the nature of this population is most important. The Empire, while having far larger population, appears weakly integrated. Entire populations (quite commonly) are depicted as isolated and poor. Basic farming or harvesting seems commonplace. Much of the population appears uneducated and even tribal. While the core worlds are densely populated, they are apparently completely dependent on agricultural and other products from the empire. This means Star Wars retains a traditional resource economy model.
Star Trek, by contrast, has matter/energy conversion. The Federation is deeply integrated with almost no poverty and a large decentralized membership of worlds. The importance of matter/energy conversion cannot be overemphasized. On a war footing, the only limits to the Federation's economic capacity is energy which is in vast supply in both universes.
In addition, each world is at least theoretically capable of self sufficiency. Although there still appears to be strategic resources in Trek (dilithium comes to mind), these are relatively limited and the series has routinely demonstrated that they can innovate when necessary around them. The greatest advantage of the Empire is size. But the small, highly integrated and economically more advanced Federation is similar to the inequality many leading nations in Earth's history have held over their more numerous adversaries. Numbers alone cannot determine the issue.
Social Factors
The Federation is a democracy with fully functioning representative government that has demonstrated unfailing resolve in the face of both invasion and subversion. A careful, adaptive, and strategic mindset is universally depicted with the Federation routinely tackling better armed and more numerous adversaries.
The Empire is a dictatorship deeply riven by insurrection and dissent. Entire planetary economies are in de facto revolt with the best technology of key defense companies is in the hands of the Rebellion (i.e. Incom). Control is maintained through direct rule via regional governors and is shaky enough that planetary obliteration is required in order to maintain control.
When pressed the Federation will coalesce (as it did with the Borg). Its unified tech basis and energy economy means perfectly fluid production and great adaptability. Individual initiative and problem solving is a Trek hallmark. Similar initiative in Star Wars is shown as being a quick way to a Force-induced death. Although both world have great diversity, the Empire is deeply racist and enforces a human-first ethic, which severely restricts the full participation of most of their Empires inhabitants. Star Trek has no such barriers.
Such social cooperation would present a huge propaganda advantage to Trek. Who could offer union to the vast, under-trodden alien masses and endless material support to the Rebellion.
Tactical Factors
Detection, Evasion, Range. These three elements spell the doom of the Empire. The sensors in Star Trek can discern the individual cellular make up of individuals on a planet from orbit, can detect ships from trillions of kilometers away (in other sectors) and can track and successfully target objects at ranges of hundred of thousands of kilometers in space.
By contrast, sensors on a Star Destroyer cannot even detect droids in a unshielded pod. They cannot track down individual aliens (say, Wookie) on a planet, and most combat occurs at visual range with a remarkable rate of misses.
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Cloaking technology in Trek, which is effective against that milieu's vastly superior sensor Tech, would be an overwhelming advantage making most Trek vessels effectively invisible. Even without this, the range and accuracy of sensors means that Trek vessels could detect SW vessels at vast distances and engage them while remaining completely invisible. As modern fighter combat has routinely demonstrated the age of the dog fight is past. Long range detection and strike renders numbers almost meaningless. Like a modern F-22 (with nearly unlimited ammo), enemies inside the weapon envelop can be eliminated long before they can even bring their weapons to bare.
Weapon tech is also no contest. Photon torpedoes travel at warp speed. This means that they are unblockable by Star Wars vessels whose reaction time is such that skilled humans can provide superior guidance as compared to their computers. Photon torpedoes are matter/antimatter devices whose yields have been described as being able to wipe out cities with a single torpedo. Proton torpedoes are sublight (and slow) missiles that can destroy city blocks. Given that several laser shots and the impact of a vessel traveling at sublight was sufficient to destroy the shield generators on an Executor Class vessel, it is perfectly possible for Star Trek ships to target the shield of Star Destroyers from ranges well beyond the detection range of those shipsand then bombard them with total impunity.
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Without going into the difficult discussion around energy outputs of beam weapons, Star Trek beams are computer controlled, use the vastly superior Trek sensors and computer systems, and have an output that has been described as being capable of destroying the entire surface of a planet. Turbo lasers (save and except the Death Star's) have limited firing arcs and, while incredibly numerous, are dramatically limited by poor fire control and range.
In Trek, it would be a foolish captain that would enter firing range but Trek Shielding has repeatedly encountered "laser" weapons and indicated that they posed little or no threat to the shield capacity of their vessels. On more than one occasion, Trek shields have resisted near-nuclear strikes, plasma blasts that have eradicated entire planetary installations, and torpedoes capable of reducing modern vessels into component atoms. Given the ability of small, unshielded craft to survive direct strikes from turbo laser batteries ,the shields of Trek could offer near complete shielding for all but the most intense fusillade.
On this note, much is made of the lack of fighters in Trek. One simple explanation is that such craft simply cannot survive when pitted against capital ship level phasers targeted by near-AI level computer and tracking systems. Put simply, what Trek ships aim at they hit. Nearly always. Small ships simply do not challenge large ships in Trek and with good reason.
Additionally, transporters have huge tactical advantages. Without shields and at distances of tens of thousands of kilometers, the Federation would be able to teleport fusion weapons directly into launch bays or engine rooms. Finally, warp capability means that Federation ships can travel faster than human reaction (which is apparently the benchmark for targeting in Star Wars). This means they can effectively move with impunity through the battle zone.
Bottom line, the sheer size of the Empire presents the most compelling threat to the Federation. But it is facing a small, tightly integrated, post-scarcity Federation possessed of ships with vastly greater tactical flexibility. The political attractions of the Federation are also not to be understated as political warfare is an area the Federation may be uniquely well positioned to capitalize on. If the Federation could survive long enough to ramp up to a war footing sheet, tactical advantages could prove more than a match for the Empire's vast numerical superiority.
Star Trek: 1, Star Wars: 0.
Linked From: Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek? by Rom Lokken - Quora at http://gizmodo.com/who-would-win-in-an-all-out-battle-star-wars-or-star-t-1676075613
In an all-out battle (and excluding the Death Star), which star fleet would win, Star Trek or Star Wars? originally appeared on Quora.
This answer has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
A classic debate! Good or Evil? Chocolate or Strawberry? Star Trek or Star Wars (excluding the Death Star)? But unlike those timeless questions this one really does seem to have a compelling answer. And its not what the majority seem to think.
A few necessary caveats (take heed ye trolls):
1) Although it (should) hardly need sayingthese are both completely fictional universes whose technology and scientific foundations are, at best, bolted on after the fact as part of the setting and/or necessary plot devices. This entire debate is like meaningfully debating the combat prowess of Unicorns vs. Dragons. But of course, we're going to do it anyway.
2) The goal is to assume the most favorable interpretations for each technology as demonstrated most coherently by each canon. Obvious mistakes (i.e using parsecs as a measure of time... Hello Han) or figures completely inconsistent with the results offered (Star Destroyers with power generation of 7.75 x 1024 W... only 100 times less than the sun!) will be ignored.
For those crying foul a Star Destroyer that needs that much power (to create the abilities displayed) would represent the most fantastic inefficiency ever conceived. Likewise, some of the energy readings suggested for Star Wars laser weapons would instantaneously vaporize any unshielded craftnot to mention the atmosphere in between themin rather spectacular fashion. Nothing in the physical behavior of these weapons supports these values (for instance that Slave 1 has 64,000 GW lasers or 190 Megaton missiles. Never, in any battle, was a blast of that nature or kind observed).
Bottom line: All weapons and systems should be evaluated on how they actually perform as depicted in the canon as opposed to often innumerate and psuedo-scientific gibberish offered in support of them. That being said, where a vaguely credible explanation has been offered, it will generally be taken (i.e. lasers are lasers).
3) The treatment of technology dramatically complicates the task of comparison. Star Trek consciously attempted to provide at least some basis (however weak or novel) for the science behind their technology. Star Trek represents a technological utopia and was promoting the idea of a better future via modern technology. This is also evident in that the technology of Star Trek advances dramatically over the course of the various seasons (including referencing far future Star Trek timelines with mastery over time itself). Star Wars, on the other hand, makes no such claims and depicts an utterly static technological milieu in which no appreciable advances have been made (save perhaps the Death Star itself) in tens of thousands of years. In addition, Star Wars often offers littleif anyscientific explanation for its tech (Hyperspaceit's fast!). I am assuming the general tech capabilities of Trek as found as late as Voyager.
Now, those out of the way lets get to the point. This is not a close fight. Despite the desires of the many fans, the Star Trek universe is rife with economic, tactical, social, and technological superiority. Claims of Star Wars victories all seem to echo the Stalin-esque view that "Quantity has a Quality all its own." But this is profoundly misguided. Let's break down why.
Economic Factors
Star Wars population is very difficult to assess. Some estimates suggest a 1,000,000 world Empire. But the Galactic Senate depicts a vastly smaller political entity. According to Star Wars Wiki, the Empire was divided into units of 50 systems each with a senator. However, the Senate only has 2,000 members. Which means a galactic polity of 100,000 active members. This is still vastly greater than the Federation with something like 150 members and 1-5 thousand worlds.
However, the nature of this population is most important. The Empire, while having far larger population, appears weakly integrated. Entire populations (quite commonly) are depicted as isolated and poor. Basic farming or harvesting seems commonplace. Much of the population appears uneducated and even tribal. While the core worlds are densely populated, they are apparently completely dependent on agricultural and other products from the empire. This means Star Wars retains a traditional resource economy model.
Star Trek, by contrast, has matter/energy conversion. The Federation is deeply integrated with almost no poverty and a large decentralized membership of worlds. The importance of matter/energy conversion cannot be overemphasized. On a war footing, the only limits to the Federation's economic capacity is energy which is in vast supply in both universes.
In addition, each world is at least theoretically capable of self sufficiency. Although there still appears to be strategic resources in Trek (dilithium comes to mind), these are relatively limited and the series has routinely demonstrated that they can innovate when necessary around them. The greatest advantage of the Empire is size. But the small, highly integrated and economically more advanced Federation is similar to the inequality many leading nations in Earth's history have held over their more numerous adversaries. Numbers alone cannot determine the issue.
Social Factors
The Federation is a democracy with fully functioning representative government that has demonstrated unfailing resolve in the face of both invasion and subversion. A careful, adaptive, and strategic mindset is universally depicted with the Federation routinely tackling better armed and more numerous adversaries.
The Empire is a dictatorship deeply riven by insurrection and dissent. Entire planetary economies are in de facto revolt with the best technology of key defense companies is in the hands of the Rebellion (i.e. Incom). Control is maintained through direct rule via regional governors and is shaky enough that planetary obliteration is required in order to maintain control.
When pressed the Federation will coalesce (as it did with the Borg). Its unified tech basis and energy economy means perfectly fluid production and great adaptability. Individual initiative and problem solving is a Trek hallmark. Similar initiative in Star Wars is shown as being a quick way to a Force-induced death. Although both world have great diversity, the Empire is deeply racist and enforces a human-first ethic, which severely restricts the full participation of most of their Empires inhabitants. Star Trek has no such barriers.
Such social cooperation would present a huge propaganda advantage to Trek. Who could offer union to the vast, under-trodden alien masses and endless material support to the Rebellion.
Tactical Factors
Detection, Evasion, Range. These three elements spell the doom of the Empire. The sensors in Star Trek can discern the individual cellular make up of individuals on a planet from orbit, can detect ships from trillions of kilometers away (in other sectors) and can track and successfully target objects at ranges of hundred of thousands of kilometers in space.
By contrast, sensors on a Star Destroyer cannot even detect droids in a unshielded pod. They cannot track down individual aliens (say, Wookie) on a planet, and most combat occurs at visual range with a remarkable rate of misses.
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Cloaking technology in Trek, which is effective against that milieu's vastly superior sensor Tech, would be an overwhelming advantage making most Trek vessels effectively invisible. Even without this, the range and accuracy of sensors means that Trek vessels could detect SW vessels at vast distances and engage them while remaining completely invisible. As modern fighter combat has routinely demonstrated the age of the dog fight is past. Long range detection and strike renders numbers almost meaningless. Like a modern F-22 (with nearly unlimited ammo), enemies inside the weapon envelop can be eliminated long before they can even bring their weapons to bare.
Weapon tech is also no contest. Photon torpedoes travel at warp speed. This means that they are unblockable by Star Wars vessels whose reaction time is such that skilled humans can provide superior guidance as compared to their computers. Photon torpedoes are matter/antimatter devices whose yields have been described as being able to wipe out cities with a single torpedo. Proton torpedoes are sublight (and slow) missiles that can destroy city blocks. Given that several laser shots and the impact of a vessel traveling at sublight was sufficient to destroy the shield generators on an Executor Class vessel, it is perfectly possible for Star Trek ships to target the shield of Star Destroyers from ranges well beyond the detection range of those shipsand then bombard them with total impunity.
Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek?
Without going into the difficult discussion around energy outputs of beam weapons, Star Trek beams are computer controlled, use the vastly superior Trek sensors and computer systems, and have an output that has been described as being capable of destroying the entire surface of a planet. Turbo lasers (save and except the Death Star's) have limited firing arcs and, while incredibly numerous, are dramatically limited by poor fire control and range.
In Trek, it would be a foolish captain that would enter firing range but Trek Shielding has repeatedly encountered "laser" weapons and indicated that they posed little or no threat to the shield capacity of their vessels. On more than one occasion, Trek shields have resisted near-nuclear strikes, plasma blasts that have eradicated entire planetary installations, and torpedoes capable of reducing modern vessels into component atoms. Given the ability of small, unshielded craft to survive direct strikes from turbo laser batteries ,the shields of Trek could offer near complete shielding for all but the most intense fusillade.
On this note, much is made of the lack of fighters in Trek. One simple explanation is that such craft simply cannot survive when pitted against capital ship level phasers targeted by near-AI level computer and tracking systems. Put simply, what Trek ships aim at they hit. Nearly always. Small ships simply do not challenge large ships in Trek and with good reason.
Additionally, transporters have huge tactical advantages. Without shields and at distances of tens of thousands of kilometers, the Federation would be able to teleport fusion weapons directly into launch bays or engine rooms. Finally, warp capability means that Federation ships can travel faster than human reaction (which is apparently the benchmark for targeting in Star Wars). This means they can effectively move with impunity through the battle zone.
Bottom line, the sheer size of the Empire presents the most compelling threat to the Federation. But it is facing a small, tightly integrated, post-scarcity Federation possessed of ships with vastly greater tactical flexibility. The political attractions of the Federation are also not to be understated as political warfare is an area the Federation may be uniquely well positioned to capitalize on. If the Federation could survive long enough to ramp up to a war footing sheet, tactical advantages could prove more than a match for the Empire's vast numerical superiority.
Star Trek: 1, Star Wars: 0.
Linked From: Who Would Win in an All-Out Battle: Star Wars or Star Trek? by Rom Lokken - Quora at http://gizmodo.com/who-would-win-in-an-all-out-battle-star-wars-or-star-t-1676075613
In an all-out battle (and excluding the Death Star), which star fleet would win, Star Trek or Star Wars? originally appeared on Quora.
This answer has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
STAR TREK
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
To write regular sci-fi: searching information and fact for x minutes, then write a reasonable number base on the info you have
To write hard sci-fi: do 20 searching information and fact for 2x minutes, then write a reasonable number base on the info you have
To write Star Wars: searching information for x minutes, then write a reasonable number and multiply 10000.
But no seriously Q
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
The 'Babylon 5' Vorlons or the Shadows will do. Of course the Shadows/Vorlons maybe beyond Iconian level of technology, but hey Trek needs to fight new people :P. Also no Q.
(and if you're asking yourself "what's Babylon 5?" Please go die in a fire. Seriously... Burn slowly in the most horrible death possible. Better yet don't die. Just burn forever.)
this argument and its basis is all on this and that, most of which isnt considered canon referenced or could of been considered but now falls under legends which is non canon material. the stuff from startrek and the only stuff which is taken at face value for what it is on the tv is all you will get as far as accurate information is concerned.
the basic flaw in this argument which invalidates itself is how little information one has to work with. we now do not know what the power requirements are for turbolasers because all that eu stuff is invalid, we do not know how much damage a starfleet shield can take because there has never been anything canon to tell what its capacity is or how it works. we also do not know if turbolaser enrgy could deflect off starfleet ship alloys. nothing there to argue, it's invalid.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Voth have the Voth city ship (9km) and the Voth fortress (134.5Km) First death star was 160km in diameter second was 900km, while the dyson sphere is 1AU (149 597 871 kilometers) in diameter.
Undine planet killers have planet busting capabilities like the death star, and they have way more planet killers than the empire had death stars.
The borg will probably beat the TRIBBLE of the stormtroopers and borg cubes are bigger and more heavily armed than star destroyers.
But the empire seems to have better ground combat capabilities than star trek does, we've never seen an starfleet tank, or any kind of ground combat vehicle other than Voth battlesuits and Vaadwaur tanks, still star trek infantry is way better than stormtroopers, they have personal shields.
Star treks main tactical advantage would be the cloak, while star destroyers don't have cloaks, many ships in star trek do, and he imperials are not used to cloaked hit-and-run tactics.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
enough said bye bye both.
:P
Not enough ships, stargate seems to always have a shortage of ships.
Comparing the Empire to the Federation has a number of flaws - firstly, even by Voyager, the Federation was not a fully militarised force - Starfleet was still regarded as a civilian organisation for exploration (remembering it's the United Earth Space Probe Agency). Star Wars has a fully-dedicated Battle Fleet with a full-scale arsenal of weapons. Plus, Star Wars lasers are clearly not actual lasers, from on-screen evidence. They travel well below the speed of light and in Episode III we see them using breech-loading, shell-firing cannons. These shells, from The Clone Wars, are also explosive, so they can't be energy cells for a laser emitter. It's far more likely these shells contain a form of weaponised plasma, which effectively means that Starfleet Phasers and Imperial Lasers are based on the same principal - a form of superheated chemical composition which renders extreme heat damage on the target.
Let's work from that, again using on-screen evidence. The Imperial Star Destroyer has 16 Turbolaser cannon turrets, with countless regular 'lasers' (I think we see around 5 shots fired at the Tantive IV from various locations across the Star Destroyer's hull in A New Hope, so let's assume 5 and double up to take into account symmetrical design - 10). A Galaxy-Class Starship has 11 Phaser Banks, including the one mounted on top of the stardrive's connection point, with two of them classified as 'Main' Phaser Banks. A Starfleet Ship also uses photon torpedoes (quantums were not being mass-produced until the end of Voyager).
So, while this is much closer tactically than it would appear, I think a better comparison would be between the Empire and the Dominion. The Dominion controls a much greater area than the Federation, has construction capabilities comparable to the Empire's and has ships of similar size. It's a far better comparison than Federation-Empire.
That being said, at the end of the day you're talking about comparing a franchise where the writers said 'write it and figure out a scientific rationalisation for it before filming!' to one where they said 'write it and let the fans come up for an explanation for it in 30 years!'. Comparing the two is like comparing Battlestar Galactica to Red Dwarf!
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Red Dwarf wins, they have an evolved cat.
Stuff just doesn't add up.
Then there's the Death Star, probably the only thing that lives up to its numbers, but the power requirements for not just the oversized station but the entire superlaser assembly are ludicrous.
SW is a space opera that runs on applied make-sh*t-up. ST is mid-scale sci-fi that runs on technobabble and the fanatical efforts of millions of fans to make the numbers work.
The OP is right in that if we force SW to follow the numbers that can be estimated from the movies, Trek has the advantage in all but speed. But in terms of official stats, SW wins because its genre relies on big numbers that don't make sense.
Star Wars wins because of two things: speed and logistics. Even discounting the Legends continuity, Star Wars is a setting where they casually talk about traveling to the other side of the galaxy as if they were making a run to the grocery store. High hundreds of thousands to low millions of times the speed of light.
Star Trek warp drive is in the low thousands of c.
Star Wars wins because they will always have the strategic and tactical initiative. You can't win a war if you can't even bring your opponent to battle if they don't want it.
Also consider the logistical and industrial capacities needed to build a moon-sized object, Death Star II, in less than a year and have it basically combat-ready despite not being officially complete. Star Wars can readily out-build anybody in Star Trek, and because of their travel speed and logistics can resupply their forces far more readily than Star Trek.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFCBwob65Nw
To be frank, anybody that honestly argues the stats between the two IPs is an idiot. Star Wars is 100% made up and is not sci fi. Star Trek, while made up, is sci fi and a lot of it's futuristic technology is based on current theories, but it's still fake.
People like to say things like "Star Trek phasers do 100 megajoules of damage but Star Wars Imperial Destroyer lasers do 1,000 gigajoules" (I'm pulling numbers out of my TRIBBLE) or that hyperdrive is faster than warp drive. Well guess what? Those are completely fictional numbers and technologies. I can just as easily create a spaceship bigger than the biggest Star Wars ship and say it does 100,000 gigajoules of damage with 1,000 lasers bristling along it's hull. I can also give it almost Q-like speed so that it can almost instantly appear wherever it wants, and I'll call it a quantum drive. Why are my numbers and technology any less legitimate than Star Trek or Star Wars?
Whatever anyone can say about Star Wars ships and their power, I can easily one-up them by making up something even more powerful. George Lucas isn't the only one who can do that. It's a futile, childish argument.
Your fallacy is No True Scotsman. You're saying that because Star Wars doesn't bother to explain anything because it's irrelevant to the plot, it's not sci-fi.
For your information, better than 90% of Star Trek's "explanations" are complete BS that throws random buzzwords together in an utterly counterfactual manner in order to fill up airtime.
If Star Trek can be counted as sci-fi, then Star Wars is also sci-fi. Star Wars has the Force, Star Trek has Q. How are the two really any different?
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
While a massive battle is raging between the SW forces (presumably the Galatic Empire, Sith Empire, SWTOR Republic fleet, Clone Navy, CIS fleet, and Hutt cartel) and the ST forces (Presumably Federation, Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire, the Cardassian Orders, The Jem'Hadar armada, Tholian fleet, Borg collective, Hirogen ships, Iconians), a quantum singularity opens up right behind the SW fleet and out come thousands of Undine Nicor class bioships and a few planet killers. That would put an end to the fight real fast wouldn't it? *watches as a bioship one-shots a super star destroyer and planet killer blows up the death star*
Trek Wins:)
In the aftermath though, I think the Ferengi would form an allience with the Hutt Cartel. It would be a match made in heaven.
Meanwhile, when ship's phasers have a positive lock, the weapons of a Starfleet ship will hit. You've never seen the Enterprise fire three or four volleys from her main phasers off into empty space, until Worf can wrestle the targeting systems into place - you shoot, you score.
And honestly, it doesn't matter how many terajoules you claim your weapon systems can channel if you're not hitting your target.
Also, once they've geared up to a war footing, industrial replicators give Starfleet a ship-production capability not seen in the SW universe since the Star Forge shut down. Advantage Starfleet.
And, as pointed out in the article, wars are about more than one particular ship shooting at another, and the Empire's version of propaganda seems to be along the lines of, "Do what we say or we blow up your planet." The Federation, on the other hand, can point to the multiple species occupying places of importance in their government (heck, in STO, the Fed President is a Saurian!), and explain to the nonhuman races of the Empire that by siding with the Federation, they can gain their freedom and a place of respect in the galaxy. You saw a ragtag group of Ewoks armed with rocks and clubs take down a legion of Stormtroopers - imagine the swath that could be carved by an army of, say, Wookies and Twi'lek equipped with Starfleet technology...
And having now read the article through, I noted a couple key factual mistakes.
The author also neglects travel speed and logistics as I pointed out earlier.
As for accuracy? Misses against fighters are one thing, but when targeting anything corvette-sized and up turbolaser gunners are about as good as ST targeting computers.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
( Couldnt resist a waterboy schtick )
Sure they do. Brute force. Not to mention ST shields are frequently utterly terrible against attacks they've never seen before.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Except the feds have seen laser weapons before and they've proven to be ineffective against them.
A) The "no-lasers argument" is complete and utter bull****.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
However, I do think the Borg alone could defeat at least any non-force powered character in the Wars universe simply due to the adaption. How they would react to force characters is unknown, though.
That how the rebels took down the executor, one crazy A-Wing pilot rammed the bridge and sent the executor crashing into the death star, all trek ships have to do take down the generators and beam a torp onto the bridge, bye bye star destroyer
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
ST:TOS torpedoes had warp sustaining engines, in TNG they could either achieve warp by themselves or be fired at warp from stationary positions, plus in voyager we've seen warp capable torpedoes, smaller than photon torpedoes.
In SW they can't hit fighters a low c, don't expect them to hit torpedoes at high c.
Navigational capabilities of photon torpedoes are unknown.
It is unknown how shields and weapons will of ST and SW will react against eachother, as far as we know:
Both shields can't stop all energy directed at them, but in ST that seem to have less effect than in SW where ships are capable of blowing large pieces of eachother through shields.
ST shields are bubble shields capable of stopping matter and energy, they work in grids, meaning if port grid fails it will not compromise aft grid and vice versa, energy to shields can be redistributed from one grid to another, shields frequencies can be remodulated allowing a better defense against a single foe.
SW shields are skin tight, there are 2 types, ray shields (anti-energy) and physical shields (anti-projectile), they are based on layers, absorbed energy is directed into heat sinks in the ship, they collapse against focused fire on a single point, it is logical to assume that at least ray shields can deter transporters.
As for accuracy in SW cruisers seem to miss many shots against eachother, in the opening scene in the first film we see how they mist most shots against a big corvette (150m length).
Meanwhile ST targeting computers almost never miss, not even against small fighters.
SW have the speed advantage, but not necessarily the logistics advantage, ships and bases in ST are self sustaining thanks to replicators and airponics, planets can survive blockades and still supply an army and the entire population with a few replicators, meanwhile in SW, blockades are one of the main combat tactics they use.
Cloaked ships and transporters beat SW in logistics, speed is good to attack poorly defended positions, but does nothing against solid defenses an serves no purpose if you are defending other than receiving reinforcements faster, cloaking is good at both.
In ST they have slipstream (at least starfleet) and transwarp (voth and Borg), slipstream goes at 300 LY/h and transwarp beaming (is the Spock from our reality who tells Scotty about transwarp beaming, which means that at one point before 2387 transwarp beaming exists in the cannon universe) can go pretty much anywhere instantly.
SW hyperdrive has several major flaws, first it can be inhibited, unlike warp, so no ships can get out of hyperspeed near an inhibitor.
Hyperdrives only work free from gravitational pull, which means you have to get away from a planet or any kind of gravity well, so artificial gravitational pull can prevent SW ships from spacing, as far as we know deflectors can project graviton beams (a.k.a: tractor beams) or just bombard and area with graviton particles (the subatomic particle responsible for gravity).