Something thats being completely forgotten here is that Star Trek has the technology to remodulate and reconfigure both shields and weapons, where as star wars tech dont even consider this.
So basicly all a federation ship would need to do is hit a star destroyer with a series of low frequency rapid fire phaser bursts constantly remodulating in between each shot until they find one that gets through the SD's shields.
Once thats done just set the frequencies for the torpedoes and let em rip at the SD's bridge.
As much as I would like to say Galactica, the lack of shielding it its biggest downfall in this match. So, I will just have to go with Death Star...wait, that got destroyed by an X-wing flown by a noob.
As much as I would like to say Galactica, the lack of shielding it its biggest downfall in this match. So, I will just have to go with Death Star...wait, that got destroyed by an X-wing flown by a noob.
The Imperial Navy would blow all of them to tiny bits. Especially an Emperor Class Battleship, its fighter squadrons make up for the lack in firepower in comparison to the Retribution, even if I preferred the latter one.
Turbo LASERS would have no friggin effect on a Federation shields.
Really? What a delightful no limits fallacy. Tell me, if a laser as powerful as the Death Star fired at the Enterprise, would it have no effect?
You can copy and paste all the mumbo jumbo you want, but its JUST a fiction. You get that right? Its not a real scientific thing?
Rather like the mumbo jumbo of navigational deflectors I'd imagine.....
When a Star Destroyer cant even blow up a small freighter Its not going to rip through Fed Shields either. A Star Destroyer is no match for a Federation star ship.
Except you don't appear to have the slightest idea just how powerful those weapons actually are or the defenses repelling them, to say nothing of the intent to take Leias ship intact.
Federation ships are made to combat other large single craft. Star Destroyers are designed more as a type of fighter carrier.
Ah, so a wooden sailing ship is easily capable of taking on a Nimitz. After all, one is designed for combating other large combat ships and the other is a type of fighter carrier....
The beginning scene of A New Hope gives you an idea of the ships turbo laser power. It took awhile for it to even over take and capture a ship a tenth its size.
One tends to expect a colossal warship that isn't threatened in any way by its tiny prey, to refrain from using its heaviest weapons and simply atomising it.
Are we talking Talon as seen in the series or Talon as he would have been as a fully grown adult?
I don't think any of the ships listed could have stood up to Talon as a fully grown adult. The only reall dissadvantage it would have is its inferior FTL capability.
In Star Wars, it would take the firepower of half the Imperial Starfleet to destroy a planet. If you count the EU, there's also a SSD with a superlaser running the entire length of the hull. The superlaser destroys planets. Not completely, it ruptures the crust or something.
A pre-refit Constitution class has an arsenal powerful enough to destroy the entire surface of a planet. This would make the entire firepower of a pre-refit Constitution class roughly equivalent to the firepower of a SSD mounted superlaser, or a fair amount of the Imperial Starfleet.
It stands to reason that newer starships and such in Star Trek have more powerful weaponry and shields than those equipped on a pre-refit Constitution.
In Star Wars, it would take the firepower of half the Imperial Starfleet to destroy a planet.
Destroy, as in, to the point of overcoming its gravitational binding forces and turning what's left into an asteroid belt with nothing but brute force direct energy transfer, because that's what Han Solo was looking at when he said it. That half the Imperial starfleet could do that is more an indicator of utterly ludicrous firepower than the other way around if you take his off the cuff quote at face value.
They already have a code term for reducing the surface of a planet to, quote, 'molten slag', with standard warship/s. It's a Base Delta Zero.
Destroy, as in, to the point of overcoming its gravitational binding forces and turning what's left into an asteroid belt with nothing but brute force direct energy transfer, because that's what Han Solo was looking at when he said it. That half the Imperial starfleet could do that is more an indicator of utterly ludicrous firepower than the other way around if you take his off the cuff quote at face value.
They already have a code term for reducing the surface of a planet to, quote, 'molten slag', with standard warship/s. It's a Base Delta Zero.
True enough.
And thanks, didn't know about BDZ. Ych. :rolleyes:
Even if it is just lasers (and who is to say that lasers in the SW universe are anything like lasers in the ST universe?), the simple rate of fire and energy output of a Star Destroyer is much more than a Federation ship's shields could muster.
Unless you think that the power on a ship the size of a small moon is less than a 300 metre long starship?
I have had this debate for years though. The diplomatic answer has always been the Liberator from Blake's 7!
This again? Seriously, hasn't the Star Trek vs Star Wars thing been done to death? I'll recap: it boils down to people who have a clue what they're talking about versus fanbois who refuse to listen to any thought that contradicts thier own preconceptions.
For those saying that the Star Destroyer could not harm a Federation ship because it could not one-shot the Millenium Falcon; it never even began to enter your mind that maybe, just maybe the Falcon has stronger shields than the Federation can offer? No, that idea never even began to occur to you.
Timeframe of this game, the Federation has existed for what? 300 years? Less? And consists of less than a quarter of populated planets in their galaxy. The Galactic Republic existed for 25 THOUSAND YEARS before ANH, and represents the whole population of thier galaxy (excepting some notable outliers)
You see the difference in the timeframes and population?
Couple with that the commonly understood idea that technology improves over time, well I think even the simplest among us can understand the implications of one civilization having existed for such a significantly longer time with such a significant difference in population. If not, that's too bad.
Also, just beacuse its such a common misconception: The "Shield Generators" on a Star Destroyer were not meant to be the things on either side of the command tower. Those were meant to be sensor and communication hubs. The unfortunate loss of shields immediately after one of the sensor pods being destroyed, and the subsequent reiteration in video games and other media has had the unfortuante effect of solidifying the idea that those structure are the shield generators. This is Word of Lucas himself, its in one of the documentaries (or perhaps the commentary track) on the DVD for RotJ.
OKay...lets exclude crews for a moment and just concentrate on the power of the ships.
As to Talon...Im gonna say that he is fully grown and matured and fully capable of the maximum amount of destruction he is ever gonna be capable of.
I think the BSG is getting a lot of flack. You gotta remember, it got hit by a nuke or two and even without shields...it took it, and kept on fighting with minimal damage given what they were hit with.
So, out of the following in an all out death match...which ship would win?
And the contenders are:
1)The ORIGINAL Enterprise
2)Enterprise E
3) The Battlestar Galactica(New Series)
4)The White Star (Babylon 5)
5)Star Destroyer
6)Talon (Farscape)
7)The NEW Enterprise from the recent movie
Given those ships, I would say the Enterprise-E. Phasers would rip through the shields and hull of a Star Destroyer like butter. My evidence: The Super Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi goes down when a light A-Wing fighter crashes into it. Goes right through the shields and takes the ship out.
The Galactica is big, but still relies on mostly flak batteries and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were replaced by the Federation during the first Romulan War. It's weapons and defenses are totally outclassed by modern Federation ships.
The Enterprise-A and Enterprise-Abrams are obsolete in comparison to the Enterprise-E.
The White Star would give a bit of sport, but it would lack the size and resiliency to match the Enterprise-E.
I am not able to find much weapon data on Talyn's armaments besides the powerful Sonic Ascendancy Cannon.
This again? Seriously, hasn't the Star Trek vs Star Wars thing been done to death? I'll recap: it boils down to people who have a clue what they're talking about versus fanbois who refuse to listen to any thought that contradicts thier own preconceptions.
For those saying that the Star Destroyer could not harm a Federation ship because it could not one-shot the Millenium Falcon; it never even began to enter your mind that maybe, just maybe the Falcon has stronger shields than the Federation can offer? No, that idea never even began to occur to you.
Timeframe of this game, the Federation has existed for what? 300 years? Less? And consists of less than a quarter of populated planets in their galaxy. The Galactic Republic existed for 25 THOUSAND YEARS before ANH, and represents the whole population of thier galaxy (excepting some notable outliers)
You see the difference in the timeframes and population?
Couple with that the commonly understood idea that technology improves over time, well I think even the simplest among us can understand the implications of one civilization having existed for such a significantly longer time with such a significant difference in population. If not, that's too bad.
Also, just beacuse its such a common misconception: The "Shield Generators" on a Star Destroyer were not meant to be the things on either side of the command tower. Those were meant to be sensor and communication hubs. The unfortunate loss of shields immediately after one of the sensor pods being destroyed, and the subsequent reiteration in video games and other media has had the unfortuante effect of solidifying the idea that those structure are the shield generators. This is Word of Lucas himself, its in one of the documentaries (or perhaps the commentary track) on the DVD for RotJ.
So your entire argument boils down to utter speculation about a "theory" on the falcons shields vs a star destroyers weapons and a leap of faith about advancements based simply how long the republic has lasted?.
The egyptian empire lasted just over 3000 years and they barely advanced from the bronze age to the iron age in terms of technology, so years mean nothing unless you do something with them.
Sorry dude but trek tech is way more adsvanced than star wars tech no mater how long the republic has been about.
EG:
Data vs C3PO/R2D2 or those joke battle roids = LOL no contest, Data wins.
Death star vs trilithium torpedo = LOL no contest, star wars needs a moon sized ship to kill a mere planet while trek can blow a SUN with a single missile.
Death star vs trilithium torpedo = LOL no contest, star wars needs a moon sized ship to kill a mere planet while trek can blow a SUN with a single missile.
I always thought "wtf was the point of a death star of you have sun crushers", although they were written into the star wars universe long after the original story in the hope of keeping up with the trek universe (check out the time line lol they released the idea of the sun crusher in a book around the time generations was released on film).........:rolleyes:
So your entire argument boils down to utter speculation about a "theory" on the falcons shields vs a star destroyers weapons and a leap of faith about advancements based simply how long the republic has lasted?.
The egyptian empire lasted just over 3000 years and they barely advanced from the bronze age to the iron age in terms of technology, so years mean nothing unless you do something with them.
Sorry dude but trek tech is way more adsvanced than star wars tech no mater how long the republic has been about.
Nope, not an assumption, that was entirely based on the published shield power outputs of the two ships provided in publications approved by the respective IP owners. (the actual comparison was between the Falcon and Enterprise-D a good long time ago, I reason that because the shiled power of the Falcon is many orders of magnitude greater than the Ent-D, the same would hold true for Ent-E.)
My theory regarding technology advancement was specifically about spacefaring civilizations, so your comparison to Ancient Egypt is meaningless.
And no, you have it backwards, in most regards Star Wars Technology is vastly superior. Weapon and shield output is ridiculous to the point of crossing the line from Sci-Fi to pure fantasy. Propulsion is many orders of magnitude faster.
There are several factors in the favor of Trek. Transporter tech, sun-killing torpedoes and not getting beaten up by teddy bears for example. However, based on published materials Star Wars technology is far superior. If one choosees to ignore or dispute the facts of the matter in order to promote thier own opinion, that is a failing of that person, not of the opposing side.
Is Star Wars technology stupidly powerful? Yes, but the base numbers come directly from the creator's mind (more likely he pulled the numbers out his backside). Star Wars technology is the "Sufficiently advanced science" AC Clarke was talking about. Star Trek at least has some semblance of attempting to ground its tech in actual physics. Star Trek is cooler, to be sure. But as depicted and described, it is not more powerful.
Easy. New Galactica. She has a huge weapon that no one can stop. FTL Jump engines. Remember what happens when a Raptor jumps inside the landing bay? Jump the Galactica into a SSDs reactor, BOOOOM.
Easy. New Galactica. She has a huge weapon that no one can stop. FTL Jump engines. Remember what happens when a Raptor jumps inside the landing bay? Jump the Galactica into a SSDs reactor, BOOOOM.
thats not much difference to ramming something, anyone could do that
also galactica would not survive the explosion. the point is to win not kill yourself in the process
Nope, not an assumption, that was entirely based on the published shield power outputs of the two ships provided in publications approved by the respective IP owners. (the actual comparison was between the Falcon and Enterprise-D a good long time ago, I reason that because the shiled power of the Falcon is many orders of magnitude greater than the Ent-D, the same would hold true for Ent-E.).
My theory regarding technology advancement was specifically about spacefaring civilizations, so your comparison to Ancient Egypt is meaningless.
No its not its perfectly valid as it shows how the most advanced civilisation of a age can sometimes stagnate and not advance much.
Its obvious that in the starwars galaxy that they are the most wide spread and advanced civilisation, while in the trek galaxy they find and incorporate tech from much older civilizations that existed for thousands if not in some cases tens of thousands of years.
The trek universe also uses tech from the borg and other races that span multiple galaxies instead of stagnating for thousands of years like the starwars galaxy has.
And no, you have it backwards, in most regards Star Wars Technology is vastly superior. Weapon and shield output is ridiculous to the point of crossing the line from Sci-Fi to pure fantasy. Propulsion is many orders of magnitude faster.
Again your opinion and speculation with nothing to back it up.
There are several factors in the favor of Trek. Transporter tech, sun-killing torpedoes and not getting beaten up by teddy bears for example. However, based on published materials Star Wars technology is far superior. If one choosees to ignore or dispute the facts of the matter in order to promote thier own opinion, that is a failing of that person, not of the opposing side.
I am only ignoring your speculation and as such 99% of your post.
Is Star Wars technology stupidly powerful? Yes, but the base numbers come directly from the creator's mind (more likely he pulled the numbers out his backside). Star Wars technology is the "Sufficiently advanced science" AC Clarke was talking about. Star Trek at least has some semblance of attempting to ground its tech in actual physics. Star Trek is cooler, to be sure. But as depicted and described, it is not more powerful
Thats just it, starwars tech is NOT poweful.
Look at the death star, its a moonish sized station that can pop a planet.
Now that may seem powerful but lets face the fact that in most sci-fi and certainly compared to trek tech blowing up a planet does not require a moon sized station to do, in fact it can be done with a single missile fired from pretty much any ship available.
Look at AI design, data compared to the LOL droids in star wars.
The AI droids in star wars are a joke bud.
Inelegant ship designs due to low level tech being unable to be effective internally.
Communication, shield generators and sensor arrays that need to protrude from the ship instead of being internal.
The star wars tech is unevolved, just like its basic design is stuck in the 1970's.
So, out of the following in an all out death match...which ship would win?
And the contenders are:
1)The ORIGINAL Enterprise
2)Enterprise E
3) The Battlestar Galactica(New Series)
4)The White Star (Babylon 5)
5)Star Destroyer
6)Talon (Farscape)
7)The NEW Enterprise from the recent movie
Give us your answer and you logic behind that reason. Lets...try and keep it semi....well, realistic. As realistic as you can get anyway as none of these ships exist.
I would have to go for the Battlestar Galactica. Its has a horrific amount of weaponry, stupidly thick hull and a fleet of fighters at its disposal.
The Original Enterprise
Picard has the firepower, but Kirk's got the know-how on on to get the upper hand.
Don't know much about the Battlestar Galactica, the White Star, or the Talon
And I've understood Star Destroyers to use lasers and have a max speed of Warp 1.1 on the TOS scale, but I'm not 100% sure if this is right at all.
The New Enterprise, not with new Kirk as Captain; no experience whatsoever. May stand a chance with Pike as captain.
This would be impossible to judge without an accurate and equal system that all systems can be converted to. So its really, in a way, impossible to tell which would win in a ship fight with others from different series. More than likely Enterprise-E would decimate the original Enterprise in about 10 seconds, give or take depending on which version is used, and the original Enterprise would probably be on equal footting with the new Enterprise.
Copy and paste works real good dont it? Good for you.
Turbo LASERS would have no friggin effect on a Federation shields.
You can copy and paste all the mumbo jumbo you want, but its JUST a fiction. You get that right? Its not a real scientific thing?
When a Star Destroyer cant even blow up a small freighter Its not going to rip through Fed Shields either. A Star Destroyer is no match for a Federation star ship.
Federation ships are made to combat other large single craft. Star Destroyers are designed more as a type of fighter carrier.
The beginning scene of A New Hope gives you an idea of the ships turbo laser power. It took awhile for it to even over take and capture a ship a tenth its size.
A few phaser shots to key systems, and a spread of photon torpedos? Bye bye Destroyer. Thanks for coming out.
I never claimed I didn't cut and paste what I posted, and just because I got the info from another website doesn't invalidate the information. Star Wars fiction is more powerful than Star Trek fiction.
I notice you failed to point out that the freighter the star destroyer couldn't "blow up" was one they were trying to capture. Also the shields on the freighter weren't the weak TRIBBLE the Feddies use, but smaller versions of the mighty shields they use to shield planets. The Feds have yet to be able to develop planetary shields. Lets also not forget that every time an alien sneezes in Star Trek the Federation shields drop to 50%. Why even the Kazon who by Star Treks own evaluation are technologically primitive compared to the Federation had no problem kicking the butt of Voyager. Voyager, one of starfleet's most advanced ships, couldn't run away fast enough.
Star Destroyer shows up, result dead Feddies everywhere.
Nope, not an assumption, that was entirely based on the published shield power outputs of the two ships provided in publications approved by the respective IP owners. (the actual comparison was between the Falcon and Enterprise-D a good long time ago, I reason that because the shiled power of the Falcon is many orders of magnitude greater than the Ent-D, the same would hold true for Ent-E.)
My theory regarding technology advancement was specifically about spacefaring civilizations, so your comparison to Ancient Egypt is meaningless.
And no, you have it backwards, in most regards Star Wars Technology is vastly superior. Weapon and shield output is ridiculous to the point of crossing the line from Sci-Fi to pure fantasy. Propulsion is many orders of magnitude faster.
There are several factors in the favor of Trek. Transporter tech, sun-killing torpedoes and not getting beaten up by teddy bears for example. However, based on published materials Star Wars technology is far superior. If one choosees to ignore or dispute the facts of the matter in order to promote thier own opinion, that is a failing of that person, not of the opposing side.
Is Star Wars technology stupidly powerful? Yes, but the base numbers come directly from the creator's mind (more likely he pulled the numbers out his backside). Star Wars technology is the "Sufficiently advanced science" AC Clarke was talking about. Star Trek at least has some semblance of attempting to ground its tech in actual physics. Star Trek is cooler, to be sure. But as depicted and described, it is not more powerful.
Star Wars technology seems extremely under advanced for the age of the Republic. There is the A-Wing fight kamikazing the Super Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi and the regular Star Destroyer being destroyed by the asteroid in The Empire Strikes back, neither of which speak well of Star War's defensive abilities.
As far as offensive armaments, the TOS Enterprise possess the firepower to destroy a planet as per Captain Kirk (A Taste of Armageddon) in two hours. Meanwhile, according to Han Solo, for The Empire to accomplish such a task would take 'half of the starfleet' (or a Death Star). As far as weapon strength, I think this round goes to Star Trek.
Now for a more in depth study of defensive technology, Star Wars shields can barely protect themselves from their own weapons (fighters, despite having shields, are easily one shotted and explode catastrophically) and I am assuming that for larger ships that these shields would be able to withstand a few hits before they started penetrating the shields of a Star Destroyer, but still yet in comparison to how underpowered these weapons were that still does not speak well for the strength of Star Wars's shields. To say nothing of simply shooting a light frame A-Wing into the ship. You could argue that Star Wars shields are supposed to be optimized against energy weapons, but even then the Enterprise carries projectile weapons like photon torpedoes, which apparently the Star Wars shields offer no protection against.
As far as Trek shield technology goes, we have a very simple study here. The Death Star can destroy a planet in one shot with it's main gun. It is also shown to be able to one-shot cruisers comparable to a Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi. The Enterprise-A faces off against the Planet Killer in Doomsday Machine. This is a superweapon also capable of destroying planets with a single shot. And the Enterprise survives a hit from this. I am gonna place my bets on the Federation shield technology here. Once again, I give this round to Star Trek.
Assuming these baselines for weapon and shield effectiveness as displyed in Hard Canon from both sources, we can get an accurate picture of how powerful Star Wars technology is in comparison to Star Trek technology. And that picture is pretty darn bleak for Star Wars. Their weapons are underpowered in comparison to the Federation's weapons and their shields barely work against their own technology base.
My conclusion is that the Galactic Republic has hit technological stagnation worse then the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40k and is severely under-powered. Now a large number of Star Destroyers may be able to overwhelm a Sovereign class battleship, but they would experience heavy losses in the process.
Comments
So basicly all a federation ship would need to do is hit a star destroyer with a series of low frequency rapid fire phaser bursts constantly remodulating in between each shot until they find one that gets through the SD's shields.
Once thats done just set the frequencies for the torpedoes and let em rip at the SD's bridge.
You mean a noob with the force :rolleyes:
We got the Death Star
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Warship_Voyager
Or the Voyager from endgame after its been upgraded - Transphasic torps FTW
Really? What a delightful no limits fallacy. Tell me, if a laser as powerful as the Death Star fired at the Enterprise, would it have no effect?
Rather like the mumbo jumbo of navigational deflectors I'd imagine.....
Except you don't appear to have the slightest idea just how powerful those weapons actually are or the defenses repelling them, to say nothing of the intent to take Leias ship intact.
Ah, so a wooden sailing ship is easily capable of taking on a Nimitz. After all, one is designed for combating other large combat ships and the other is a type of fighter carrier....
One tends to expect a colossal warship that isn't threatened in any way by its tiny prey, to refrain from using its heaviest weapons and simply atomising it.
I don't think any of the ships listed could have stood up to Talon as a fully grown adult. The only reall dissadvantage it would have is its inferior FTL capability.
A pre-refit Constitution class has an arsenal powerful enough to destroy the entire surface of a planet. This would make the entire firepower of a pre-refit Constitution class roughly equivalent to the firepower of a SSD mounted superlaser, or a fair amount of the Imperial Starfleet.
It stands to reason that newer starships and such in Star Trek have more powerful weaponry and shields than those equipped on a pre-refit Constitution.
Just my thoughts.
Destroy, as in, to the point of overcoming its gravitational binding forces and turning what's left into an asteroid belt with nothing but brute force direct energy transfer, because that's what Han Solo was looking at when he said it. That half the Imperial starfleet could do that is more an indicator of utterly ludicrous firepower than the other way around if you take his off the cuff quote at face value.
They already have a code term for reducing the surface of a planet to, quote, 'molten slag', with standard warship/s. It's a Base Delta Zero.
True enough.
And thanks, didn't know about BDZ. Ych. :rolleyes:
Even if it is just lasers (and who is to say that lasers in the SW universe are anything like lasers in the ST universe?), the simple rate of fire and energy output of a Star Destroyer is much more than a Federation ship's shields could muster.
Unless you think that the power on a ship the size of a small moon is less than a 300 metre long starship?
I have had this debate for years though. The diplomatic answer has always been the Liberator from Blake's 7!
This again? Seriously, hasn't the Star Trek vs Star Wars thing been done to death? I'll recap: it boils down to people who have a clue what they're talking about versus fanbois who refuse to listen to any thought that contradicts thier own preconceptions.
For those saying that the Star Destroyer could not harm a Federation ship because it could not one-shot the Millenium Falcon; it never even began to enter your mind that maybe, just maybe the Falcon has stronger shields than the Federation can offer? No, that idea never even began to occur to you.
Timeframe of this game, the Federation has existed for what? 300 years? Less? And consists of less than a quarter of populated planets in their galaxy. The Galactic Republic existed for 25 THOUSAND YEARS before ANH, and represents the whole population of thier galaxy (excepting some notable outliers)
You see the difference in the timeframes and population?
Couple with that the commonly understood idea that technology improves over time, well I think even the simplest among us can understand the implications of one civilization having existed for such a significantly longer time with such a significant difference in population. If not, that's too bad.
Also, just beacuse its such a common misconception: The "Shield Generators" on a Star Destroyer were not meant to be the things on either side of the command tower. Those were meant to be sensor and communication hubs. The unfortunate loss of shields immediately after one of the sensor pods being destroyed, and the subsequent reiteration in video games and other media has had the unfortuante effect of solidifying the idea that those structure are the shield generators. This is Word of Lucas himself, its in one of the documentaries (or perhaps the commentary track) on the DVD for RotJ.
As to Talon...Im gonna say that he is fully grown and matured and fully capable of the maximum amount of destruction he is ever gonna be capable of.
I think the BSG is getting a lot of flack. You gotta remember, it got hit by a nuke or two and even without shields...it took it, and kept on fighting with minimal damage given what they were hit with.
Given those ships, I would say the Enterprise-E. Phasers would rip through the shields and hull of a Star Destroyer like butter. My evidence: The Super Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi goes down when a light A-Wing fighter crashes into it. Goes right through the shields and takes the ship out.
The Galactica is big, but still relies on mostly flak batteries and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were replaced by the Federation during the first Romulan War. It's weapons and defenses are totally outclassed by modern Federation ships.
The Enterprise-A and Enterprise-Abrams are obsolete in comparison to the Enterprise-E.
The White Star would give a bit of sport, but it would lack the size and resiliency to match the Enterprise-E.
I am not able to find much weapon data on Talyn's armaments besides the powerful Sonic Ascendancy Cannon.
If I could insert my own entry, I would go for an Apocalypse-class battleship.
So your entire argument boils down to utter speculation about a "theory" on the falcons shields vs a star destroyers weapons and a leap of faith about advancements based simply how long the republic has lasted?.
The egyptian empire lasted just over 3000 years and they barely advanced from the bronze age to the iron age in terms of technology, so years mean nothing unless you do something with them.
Sorry dude but trek tech is way more adsvanced than star wars tech no mater how long the republic has been about.
EG:
Data vs C3PO/R2D2 or those joke battle roids = LOL no contest, Data wins.
Death star vs trilithium torpedo = LOL no contest, star wars needs a moon sized ship to kill a mere planet while trek can blow a SUN with a single missile.
One response to that:
Sun-crusher
I always thought "wtf was the point of a death star of you have sun crushers", although they were written into the star wars universe long after the original story in the hope of keeping up with the trek universe (check out the time line lol they released the idea of the sun crusher in a book around the time generations was released on film).........:rolleyes:
Nope, not an assumption, that was entirely based on the published shield power outputs of the two ships provided in publications approved by the respective IP owners. (the actual comparison was between the Falcon and Enterprise-D a good long time ago, I reason that because the shiled power of the Falcon is many orders of magnitude greater than the Ent-D, the same would hold true for Ent-E.)
My theory regarding technology advancement was specifically about spacefaring civilizations, so your comparison to Ancient Egypt is meaningless.
And no, you have it backwards, in most regards Star Wars Technology is vastly superior. Weapon and shield output is ridiculous to the point of crossing the line from Sci-Fi to pure fantasy. Propulsion is many orders of magnitude faster.
There are several factors in the favor of Trek. Transporter tech, sun-killing torpedoes and not getting beaten up by teddy bears for example. However, based on published materials Star Wars technology is far superior. If one choosees to ignore or dispute the facts of the matter in order to promote thier own opinion, that is a failing of that person, not of the opposing side.
Is Star Wars technology stupidly powerful? Yes, but the base numbers come directly from the creator's mind (more likely he pulled the numbers out his backside). Star Wars technology is the "Sufficiently advanced science" AC Clarke was talking about. Star Trek at least has some semblance of attempting to ground its tech in actual physics. Star Trek is cooler, to be sure. But as depicted and described, it is not more powerful.
thats not much difference to ramming something, anyone could do that
also galactica would not survive the explosion. the point is to win not kill yourself in the process
Show intead of tell pal.
No its not its perfectly valid as it shows how the most advanced civilisation of a age can sometimes stagnate and not advance much.
Its obvious that in the starwars galaxy that they are the most wide spread and advanced civilisation, while in the trek galaxy they find and incorporate tech from much older civilizations that existed for thousands if not in some cases tens of thousands of years.
The trek universe also uses tech from the borg and other races that span multiple galaxies instead of stagnating for thousands of years like the starwars galaxy has.
Again your opinion and speculation with nothing to back it up.
I am only ignoring your speculation and as such 99% of your post.
Thats just it, starwars tech is NOT poweful.
Look at the death star, its a moonish sized station that can pop a planet.
Now that may seem powerful but lets face the fact that in most sci-fi and certainly compared to trek tech blowing up a planet does not require a moon sized station to do, in fact it can be done with a single missile fired from pretty much any ship available.
Look at AI design, data compared to the LOL droids in star wars.
The AI droids in star wars are a joke bud.
Inelegant ship designs due to low level tech being unable to be effective internally.
Communication, shield generators and sensor arrays that need to protrude from the ship instead of being internal.
The star wars tech is unevolved, just like its basic design is stuck in the 1970's.
The Original Enterprise
Picard has the firepower, but Kirk's got the know-how on on to get the upper hand.
Don't know much about the Battlestar Galactica, the White Star, or the Talon
And I've understood Star Destroyers to use lasers and have a max speed of Warp 1.1 on the TOS scale, but I'm not 100% sure if this is right at all.
The New Enterprise, not with new Kirk as Captain; no experience whatsoever. May stand a chance with Pike as captain.
This would be impossible to judge without an accurate and equal system that all systems can be converted to. So its really, in a way, impossible to tell which would win in a ship fight with others from different series. More than likely Enterprise-E would decimate the original Enterprise in about 10 seconds, give or take depending on which version is used, and the original Enterprise would probably be on equal footting with the new Enterprise.
This pretty much sums it up:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/BoB/bobSTSWcompare.html#Shields
.
I never claimed I didn't cut and paste what I posted, and just because I got the info from another website doesn't invalidate the information. Star Wars fiction is more powerful than Star Trek fiction.
I notice you failed to point out that the freighter the star destroyer couldn't "blow up" was one they were trying to capture. Also the shields on the freighter weren't the weak TRIBBLE the Feddies use, but smaller versions of the mighty shields they use to shield planets. The Feds have yet to be able to develop planetary shields. Lets also not forget that every time an alien sneezes in Star Trek the Federation shields drop to 50%. Why even the Kazon who by Star Treks own evaluation are technologically primitive compared to the Federation had no problem kicking the butt of Voyager. Voyager, one of starfleet's most advanced ships, couldn't run away fast enough.
Star Destroyer shows up, result dead Feddies everywhere.
Star Wars technology seems extremely under advanced for the age of the Republic. There is the A-Wing fight kamikazing the Super Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi and the regular Star Destroyer being destroyed by the asteroid in The Empire Strikes back, neither of which speak well of Star War's defensive abilities.
As far as offensive armaments, the TOS Enterprise possess the firepower to destroy a planet as per Captain Kirk (A Taste of Armageddon) in two hours. Meanwhile, according to Han Solo, for The Empire to accomplish such a task would take 'half of the starfleet' (or a Death Star). As far as weapon strength, I think this round goes to Star Trek.
Now for a more in depth study of defensive technology, Star Wars shields can barely protect themselves from their own weapons (fighters, despite having shields, are easily one shotted and explode catastrophically) and I am assuming that for larger ships that these shields would be able to withstand a few hits before they started penetrating the shields of a Star Destroyer, but still yet in comparison to how underpowered these weapons were that still does not speak well for the strength of Star Wars's shields. To say nothing of simply shooting a light frame A-Wing into the ship. You could argue that Star Wars shields are supposed to be optimized against energy weapons, but even then the Enterprise carries projectile weapons like photon torpedoes, which apparently the Star Wars shields offer no protection against.
As far as Trek shield technology goes, we have a very simple study here. The Death Star can destroy a planet in one shot with it's main gun. It is also shown to be able to one-shot cruisers comparable to a Star Destroyer in Return of the Jedi. The Enterprise-A faces off against the Planet Killer in Doomsday Machine. This is a superweapon also capable of destroying planets with a single shot. And the Enterprise survives a hit from this. I am gonna place my bets on the Federation shield technology here. Once again, I give this round to Star Trek.
Assuming these baselines for weapon and shield effectiveness as displyed in Hard Canon from both sources, we can get an accurate picture of how powerful Star Wars technology is in comparison to Star Trek technology. And that picture is pretty darn bleak for Star Wars. Their weapons are underpowered in comparison to the Federation's weapons and their shields barely work against their own technology base.
My conclusion is that the Galactic Republic has hit technological stagnation worse then the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40k and is severely under-powered. Now a large number of Star Destroyers may be able to overwhelm a Sovereign class battleship, but they would experience heavy losses in the process.
Darn, IMG tag not working :mad: