Star Wars vs. Star Trek, and so on.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 4:44 pm

Plus the 'Warp is inferior to Hyperdrive' angle is the only decisive factor in every battle 'example', even though it isn't actually known for certain which really is faster. That's as conflicted and impossible to determine as Trek Vs Wars.

The 'Star Destroyer' site is quite amusing, really. I like reading it.

Well the hyperdrive would appear faster... I mean they do use a lot more of their galaxy...

posted on August 18th, 2009, 4:56 pm

Well lets see. Warp involves bending time and space around the vessel, and then expanding and contracting it to go at an incredible speed. Hyperdrive involves going into a parallel semi-phased dimension smaller than our own, and going at a high speed until you correspond with your original universe.  Huh. I think Warp sounds a little more realistic. I guess.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 5:16 pm

Well to be honest

NO!

Sorry

posted on August 18th, 2009, 5:29 pm

What do you mean by that? The warp dose sound pretty outrageous, but in Sci-Fi terms, it's a but better sounding than the far greater amount of power than going into hyperspace. But then again I'm not very sure.

posted on August 18th, 2009, 10:10 pm

Hmm, well I Don't want to type myself into a corner with this, but...

Lets see.  StarWars has:
The Force
Numbers
Lazers and plasma cannons
uuh, just over light speed capable ships.
lightsabers, and the deathstar(not really. )


Startrek has(just to state a few a few)
Warp 9
Phasers, torpedoes
transporters
Real shields
Borg
and Klingons.


I think Startrek has a much higher speed in our terms, and the star wars galaxy must be pritty small.  the borg could assimilate an entire crew or ship and would easly adapt to the weapons of the Starwars ships.  klingons would win in hand to hand combat, though the force would be a forseeable problem.  Yoda might be able to win the battle, but is to pacifist to really pose a threat, and he still can not avoid a transporter.  

Over all Star trek would win.IMO

posted on August 19th, 2009, 1:27 am

Blah I radther see a B5 vs Star trek thread lmao!

posted on August 19th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Well, there is a Babylon 5 vs. Star Trek video on the internet. Its on Youtube, or Google video, whichever you prefer. Simply type in Star Trek vs. Babylon 5. However, one thing I beleive I should verify is that all the weapons used in Star Wars are not in fact lasers. At all! They are in fact a plasma gun. Basically they say in the technical diagrams that it does not work by focusing light, but by energizing a gas, and turning into a plasma before being fired. Besides, even if they were lasers, to do any damage, they would have to be held on, and cut through the hull of the target (Like in Babylon 5 for example) or like a phaser, (Which is a phased laser/particle beam) besides, there would only be one lightsaber in the Imperial arsenal. 

posted on August 19th, 2009, 6:49 pm

Well, the big problem I have with Star Wars is that it is very black and white....you have the bad guys (as signified by red light sabers) and the good guys (blue or green lightsabers). It seems way too simplistic and very unconvincing. On the other hand, Star Trek actually has more complex stories and realistic motivations. No "good vs evil" nonsense.

I actually remember George Lucas stating that Star Wars were meant to be children's movies..

posted on August 19th, 2009, 6:53 pm

Give in to your hate young DrPreceptron 

posted on August 19th, 2009, 7:54 pm

Star Trek is superior technologically hands down. There is even the TNG episode where Worf and Captain Picard have the discussion regarding the Armament of that freighter they found and how Lasers couldn't even damage the Navigational Deflectors of the Enterprise.

Plus Star Wars is set A long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far Far Away....

And I'm tired of this discussion, both are great for their own respective contributions to the Science Fiction Genre. It would be like saying who would win in a science competition Albert Einstein or Nikolai Tesla.... uh... probably Both... but in their respective fields.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on August 19th, 2009, 8:03 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on August 20th, 2009, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Star Trek is superior technologically hands down.

This is only valid from a few standpoints. In Star Wars medical technology sometimes seems more and less advanced than Star Trek. Similarly in cybernetics. We have assassin droids in Star Wars that do great harm. Likewise we have replacement for organs and limbs that do their job quite well. In Star Wars, interestingly there is no mention of computers... However, again it seems to depend on series to series in Star Trek. Afterall, we have Data and several other cybernetic organisms that obviously function well, and sometimes Star Trek biological research is remarkably advanced... and other times not very.

Of course, I'd like to argue that both Star Trek and Star Wars have completely different backgrounds and are considered very different genres... which of course affects how technology is seen. Star Trek is understandably much more available technologically--because that is what is supposed to drive the show. I mean, look at Battlestar Galactica. Technology in that show is absolutely meaningless and out of place because the designers of that show wanted it that way.

posted on August 20th, 2009, 12:24 am

The only realy reason people compare them so much is because they both have "Star" in the title. If they didn't, we probably wouldn't be here (in this thread, not not alive).

[Triarii]

posted on August 20th, 2009, 2:56 am

Last edited by Triarii on August 20th, 2009, 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, the big problem I have with Star Wars is that it is very black and white....you have the bad guys (as signified by red light sabers) and the good guys (blue or green lightsabers). It seems way too simplistic and very unconvincing. On the other hand, Star Trek actually has more complex stories and realistic motivations. No "good vs evil" nonsense.

I actually remember George Lucas stating that Star Wars were meant to be children's movies..

I'm personally a fan of David Brin's take on this issue...

Salon Arts & Entertainment | "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists

Anyway, the biggest problem with a Wars ship trying to fight a Trek ship is the range issue... No matter how favourably he fudged the numbers in Wars' favour, you still had the USS Phoenix destroying a Cardassian warship at 200,000 km in TNG: The Wounded and numerous other examples from all of the first four series of weapons fire from ranges of tens of thousands of kilometres or more, compared with a theoretical (i.e. never seen on screen) range of 5,000 km for the weapons of an Imperial Star Destroyer...

This means, coupled with Trek's obvious sublight maneuverability advantage, that even the freaking USS Grissom, a ship that died in one shot from a BoP, could easily circle the ISD at about 30,000 km (a range from which Voyager was able to fire phasers on the USS Equinox in VOY: Equinox), pounding it with phaser vollies (the Oberth doesn't appear to have photon torpedoes) until the ISD were forced to give up... Christ, even the Jenolan could, even if its weapons (assuming the Sydney class has any) couldn't cause the ISD any significant harm, easily annoy the ISD half to death and could deplete it's supply of pilots by beaming them off the unshielded TIE fighters from 40,000 km away (TNG: A Matter of Honour), assuming the Jenolan has the same transporter range as the ENT-D...

Then there's the are Anderson's caculated figures of 200 megatons for Star Trek photon torpedoes (or 60ish for the absolute lower limit, which is similar to the TNG technical manual figure of 64 megatons) compared with 1 megaton for Star Wars' largest "vapourise a small town" turbolasers... Sure SW has an advantage in its ships' rates of fire, but we've already established they could never even fire on, let alone hit (and keep in mind, SW ships are hardly known for their accuracy) a Federation ship and given that even the largest turbolasers have a firepower figure a minimum of 60ish times weaker than that of a single photon torpedo and that an ISD has a total of about 75 turbolasers (most of which would likely be weaker than the 1 megaton "vapourise a small town" turbolasers), weapons with which it is capable of destroying a comparable warship in a reasonable time frame, it would seem to make sense that the ENT-D could, with a well placed volley of photon torpedoes, at least knock down the shields of an ISD if not destroy it outright, because an ISD being hit by a volley of photons would be the equivalent of being hit by a number of full alpha strikes from another ISD and keep in mind that in SW battles, most of the weapons fired by SW ships never hit their mark... and given that we KNOW that the Equinox, a vessel of similar concept to the Oberth, was armed with photon torpedoes, that means that even a lowly late-TNG Federation science ship packs more firepower with one shot than an ISD does with an entire salvo...

So yea, I'm afraid there's just no contest... To flip Michael Wong's statement (he's the guy who runs the Imperial Star Destroyer website) regarding the matter on its head, in a straight up fight, the Federation squashes the Empire like a bug... Even if we fudge the Empire's numerical advantage (which, even according to elements within the Star Wars EU, isn't nearly as large as Wong likes to claim that it is), the Federation would still squash the Empire like a bug...

posted on August 20th, 2009, 3:04 am

A most well put together argument my friend 

posted on August 20th, 2009, 6:27 am

ive seen tons of these arguments and i laugh at all of them.  noone and i mean noone has consistent numbers.  the above poster quoted the damage of the torpedoes but if i check out other sites star wars weapons and shields are measured into several gigajewells versus star treks megajewells or whatever they hell they were,  so by pure energy weapons output the star wars weapons and shields would win.  on the other hand if im a starship captain im just gonna beam a quantum torpedo right onto an ISDs bridge and blow it up.    as for ship survivability if you watch the battles you will notice ships taking dozens of hits and a couple of seconds later another ship blows up after just one hit. 

the problem with these arguments is that the movies and tv shows dont answer alot of these questions and lots of the information is picked and scavenged from various third party sources that frankly are not very consistent.  i remember in the star trek technical manual that the bird of prey had 400 some crew.    well the technical manual said it so it must be true. 

i prefer star wars for one simple reason.  the outfits...........noone and i mean noone in the star trek universe comes close to princess leia in the gold bikini.