Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

mutanthamster wrote:If I were a Star Fleet weapons engineer, I would not be that interested in the yield of my weapons, because it would not be the main source of their power. If you annihilate matter/antimatter the energy would be equal to mc2. Pretty powerful. But if you could shoot the same mass at warp speed many times than the speed of light then the energy would be equal to 1/2mv2, which is a lot higher. The faster you can go when you fire your weapons the faster the weapon is, so fighting at top speed gives you a lot more power. Maybe in later series of Star Trek weapons technology had advanced so much more that they just did not need to fire at top speed.
That depends on how warp drives work. If warp fields interact with sublight matter to preserve relativity, then that simply won't work. And I think it's likely that there's something going on to preserve relativity in some sense. There may even be direct references to relativistic effects when you're moving at sublight.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Ted C
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4486
Joined: 2002-07-07 11:00am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Ted C »

Is the going warp-strafing argument even relevant? It's certainly possible for either side to avoid engaging the other's ships; the two FTL methods move at such different speeds that either side can break off a space fight at will.

The question is whether the Federation can do anything about attacks on its planetary assets. Federation defense is space-based. They rely on detecting enemies from far enough away to intercept them and destroy them before they reach a Federation planet. The planets themselves sometimes have space stations that presumably have some defensive capability, but far from enough to protect an entire planet from attack. Few, if any, Federation planets have comprehensive shielding, although important surface installations probably do.

A fleet of Imperial ships could drop out of hyperspace right next to a planet and start bombarding the surface. The best the Federation could hope to do in opposition is to position fleets around all of its important planets to engage any Imperial ships that show up for such an attack. Episode after episode (both TOS and TNG) have shown that Federation fleet assets are too scarce to effectively defend all of their planets that way.

So the problem seems to be that the Federation will lose planets to the Empire one way or another, regardless of whether warp-strafing is a tactical option. The Imperial shields don't have to be a billion times stronger than Federation shields: if they can hold up for a couple of minutes during which major population centers or resources on target planets are destroyed, that's more than enough.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776

"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
Cesario
Subhuman Pedophilia Advocate
Posts: 392
Joined: 2011-10-08 11:34pm

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Cesario »

It was my understanding that hyperspace jumps weren't accurate enough to pull off the "jump in, shoot, jump out" stuff in the extremely well mapped Wars galaxy, much less the completely unexplored Milky Way galaxy.
User avatar
Panzersharkcat
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1705
Joined: 2011-02-28 05:36am

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Panzersharkcat »

Cesario wrote:It was my understanding that hyperspace jumps weren't accurate enough to pull off the "jump in, shoot, jump out" stuff in the extremely well mapped Wars galaxy, much less the completely unexplored Milky Way galaxy.
The Empire could probably still reach any planet before the Federation could, though.
"I'm just reading through your formspring here, and your responses to many questions seem to indicate that you are ready and willing to sacrifice realism/believability for the sake of (sometimes) marginal increases in gameplay quality. Why is this?"
"Because until I see gamers sincerely demanding that if they get winged in the gut with a bullet that they spend the next three hours bleeding out on the ground before permanently dying, they probably are too." - J.E. Sawyer
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Batman »

Cesario wrote:It was my understanding that hyperspace jumps weren't accurate enough to pull off the "jump in, shoot, jump out" stuff in the extremely well mapped Wars galaxy, much less the completely unexplored Milky Way galaxy.
The Empire has hours bare bones minimum before the Trek fleets arrive and that's ignoring that depending on where whatever available Trek fleet assets are, it may be hours before they're even notified they need to get to planet XYZ pronto. The Imperial forces easily have time to jump into a system, get their bearings, fuck up whatever planet they want to fuck up, and leave (especially as the have upper end weapon ranges measured in lighthours) long before any Trek vessels that weren't insystem at the time show up.
And who says the Milky Way galaxy will be unexplored by the time the Empire decides (for whatever reason) to invade? They could spam Probe Droids galore just to find one measly Rebel base but they're not going to use them to map a galaxy they are about to invade?
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Boeing 757 »

IIRC they used probe droids to scan completely the inner galactic core within six years or thereabout (ref: DE sourcebook). If they can do that, they will have no issue whatsoever with the Milky Way, assuming that they don't simply take the easy way and get some star-charts through local traders or what not. And I have a feeling that the probe droids which we saw in TESB are not meant for scouting interstellar space out. Most likely they have specialized equipment for such purposes.
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Boeing 757 »

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Boeing 757 wrote:Funny--neither the Klingons nor the Dominion used warp strafing when they attacked DS9...which is likely THE best kind of situation that a warp-drive equipped ship could find itself in while attacking a stationary target.
It might not be useful against modern enemies due to improvements in weapons, shields, sensors, or other things.
Even if that should be the case, then it becomes a matter of proving whether or not the 24th century Trek equivalent of those technologies is better than SW tech, otherwise it won't be an issue either way. And somehow I doubt that you can do that....
Additionally, in the early TNG episode where Data is taken over by a guy who eulogizes himself and we see Dr. Selar, they do a transport from warp speed on to a planet. If they can beam things like that, that's a potential weapon right there.
Except that it is easy as fuck to disrupt a transporter beam, so if the Federation tried something like that a few times, they would be on alert for any possibiity of it happening again. And with the relative slowness of warp drive, the Empire will be able to see them coming with time to spare and prevent it.
In "Encounter at Farpoint", they do a saucer separation at warp speed. The saucer comes to a stop around a planet. If the saucer can do it, surely a torpedo can do it too?
So? If any thing, that supports that the warp engines can move a ship at STL velocities--which further lends credence to the notion that warp strafing might employ sublight maneuvering as "Elaan of Troyius" shows. Anyhow, I think that the warp strafing arguments are WAY overblown concerning its usefulness.
How about the fact that a 20years old troop transport has not one, but several turbolaser batteries rated at 200 gigatons?
That says nothing about the shields. Real life weapons can often one hit kill things. An airplane can launch a missile that can sink a carrier. Does this mean airplanes are immune to smaller missiles? Of course not.
Huh? We're not dealing with real-life weapons, so why you felt to mention this doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I've never said that Wars ships are immune to their own weapons. They're obviously not. Though they can withstand a limited number of barrages from said weapons--some thing of which Trek ships will NOT be able to do.
Also, that says very, very little about the weapons. I used to simply disregard this for the same kind of argument you and Batman used - if they have this capability, why is it never used in the movies?
Absence of evidence does not equate into evidence of absence. Name a time during which they CLEARLY needed to use this capability, and I may concede to that argument.
But some debaters have shifted me to another position: include it all, and ask why don't they. Are there limitations we don't understand like fuel or durability?
Yeah, I agree with that overall.
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Boeing 757 »

Bakustra wrote: Secondly, saying that the heavy guns on an ISD are obviously more powerful than the ones on an Acclamator is fallacious. The two vessels have entirely different roles, and so should not be blindly compared in terms of the raw firepower they carry.
Actually, it isn't. We know that true warships can channel their entire reactor-output to their heavy weapons when they need it most, and the ISD has a bigger reactor, meaning that it can likely generate more power for its HTLs than compared to the Acclamator which is by far smaller than an ISD. It makes sense therefore to make the guns bigger to handle the need for directing all that energy, and also for dispersing waste heat. And I believe that it is undeniable that an ISD as a whole is much better suited for ship-to-ship combat instead of the Acclamator, so the need for stronger weapons certainly presents itself.
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Boeing 757 »

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Boeing 757 wrote:If they can [scan the inner galactic core in six years], they will have no issue whatsoever with the Milky Way
How the hell does that follow?
What doesn't follow about that? They have the capability of quickly mapping out such routes if need be, according to EU material. Anyway, it should be rather easy to gather astrological data to establish such routes. If any thing, that will be the HARD part, and even a basic telescope will enable someone to do it. It wouldn't surprise me that with the computer technology available to a galaxy-spanning civ like SW that they might just be able to formulate such routes using computers, first and foremost. And that's bullshit that it will take the Empire trillions of years to map a galaxy. It certainly didn't take the GFFA trillions of years to scout its own galaxy out LOL....
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Boeing 757 »

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Boeing 757 wrote:If they can [scan the inner galactic core in six years], they will have no issue whatsoever with the Milky Way
How the hell does that follow?
It took them six years to do a specific part of the galaxy. It is logical that doing the whole galaxy will take more than six years. That's far from "no issue whatsoever".[/quote]

Damn, I wish that I had that quote on hand, because as I recall it, it took only mere months for Wankatine's forces to scout the core out.
And that's bullshit that it will take the Empire trillions of years to map a galaxy. It certainly didn't take the GFFA trillions of years to scout its own galaxy out LOL....
They haven't mapped their own galaxy. Not even close. And they've been around for tens of thousands of years!
Overruled directly by AOTC. Remember this? "If it is not in our records, then it does not exist!" I suppose that Jocastu (sp?) could have said mainly out of arrogance, but if not why would she make such a statement if they hadn't already mapped every thing?
From here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Galactic_Republic

Shortly after the formation of the Republic, the Perlemian Trade Route was mapped, linking Coruscant to Ossus, and bringing the Jedi Knights into the Republic. Over the next millennia, the Corellian Run was mapped, linking Coruscant to Corellia and beyond. The wedge defined by the two trade routes became known as "the Slice." Since the stretch of hyperspace galactic-west of Coruscant was anomaly-ridden and impassible for then current Republic technology , the government expanded eastward, instead. The Core Worlds' portion of the Slice was known as the Arrowhead, and soon the Republic expanded into the Colonies.
The problem that I take up with that is:

1. Those events happened back at the dawn of the Republic, so their astrological-gathering abilities may have drastically improved over millenia. Even though it's wikia, the entry itself also mentions some thing akin to that. (see bold part)

2. We're not told when exactly the mapping of said routes began, or what the level of expediency was behind charting said routes. Perhaps other groups like the Hutt Empire or the Sith halted the Republic from quickly charting the space around itself during that time, and slowed down its progress in doing so. There could be other factors involved which we are not told.
It took them hundreds of years just to map out two major trade routes.
See above.^ I also think that you're focusing too much on mapping these hyperroutes out. WHY will they be particularly needed for knowing where to go? As far as I'm aware, there purpose is unknown besides having some kind of economic significance, as TPM shows. Hyperdrive will work off these routes whether they are known or not. Even if there should be a speed-reduction involved, hyperdrive will still be MUCH MUCH faster than warp drive. More over, the ships in all the films are able to travel across the galaxy in HOURS, without the need of any hyperroutes as the EU likes to harp over.

Oh, and about mapping, there is an easier way to do it for the Empire: most sci-fi writers think of a galaxy in terms of 2-D dimensions without considering that that a starship can cross "above" or "below" the disk. Well, if the Empire truly wanted to expedite the mapping process, they could just go entirely outside of the disk and get a better idea of where every thing is located....

Anyway, it's getting somewhat past my bedtime over here, so good night till later.
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

Boeing 757 wrote:
Bakustra wrote: Secondly, saying that the heavy guns on an ISD are obviously more powerful than the ones on an Acclamator is fallacious. The two vessels have entirely different roles, and so should not be blindly compared in terms of the raw firepower they carry.
Actually, it isn't. We know that true warships can channel their entire reactor-output to their heavy weapons when they need it most, and the ISD has a bigger reactor, meaning that it can likely generate more power for its HTLs than compared to the Acclamator which is by far smaller than an ISD. It makes sense therefore to make the guns bigger to handle the need for directing all that energy, and also for dispersing waste heat. And I believe that it is undeniable that an ISD as a whole is much better suited for ship-to-ship combat instead of the Acclamator, so the need for stronger weapons certainly presents itself.
No it doesn't. The largest artillery pieces ever constructed were specialist weapons like the German railway artillery batteries designed to shell Paris in WWI, the "Dora" and "Schwerer Gustav" gun designed to crack Maginot fortifications and employed in the Crimea, the heavy bombards of the Renaissance designed to smash down walls- and the Acclamator was built for an environment where besieging fortified systems was a regular event. Such massive weapons, oddly inconsistent with the vulnerability of starships to asteroidal collisions, can be rendered more consistent by viewing them as specialist siege artillery, not designed for ship-to-ship combat. That does not preclude Star Destroyers from carrying specialist weapons, but without evidence as such, and noting that they aren't designed for besieging fortified planets (every source on them says that they are not, while sources on the Clone Wars mention the frequency of siege warfare and the Acclamator was the mainstay of the Republic fleet for at least the first year of the conflict.

But this is why blindly assuming that the ISD must carry bigger guns than the Acclamator is fallacious; I have constructed a self-consistent argument as to why this is not the case, and so it cannot be treated as a presumption without further evidence- while you could perform raw reactor scaling, that isn't obvious either- the heavy weapons on an Acclamator may well be run off of capacitors and slowly recharged between shots, and we don't know what the proportions of power output are assigned to, beyond the very rough levels.
Boeing 757 wrote: See above.^ I also think that you're focusing too much on mapping these hyperroutes out. WHY will they be particularly needed for knowing where to go? As far as I'm aware, there purpose is unknown besides having some kind of economic significance, as TPM shows. Hyperdrive will work off these routes whether they are known or not. Even if there should be a speed-reduction involved, hyperdrive will still be MUCH MUCH faster than warp drive. More over, the ships in all the films are able to travel across the galaxy in HOURS, without the need of any hyperroutes as the EU likes to harp over.

Oh, and about mapping, there is an easier way to do it for the Empire: most sci-fi writers think of a galaxy in terms of 2-D dimensions without considering that that a starship can cross "above" or "below" the disk. Well, if the Empire truly wanted to expedite the mapping process, they could just go entirely outside of the disk and get a better idea of where every thing is located....

Anyway, it's getting somewhat past my bedtime over here, so good night till later.
How do you know that they didn't use mapped routes? You're treating hyperroutes like they're some kind of interstellar highway rather than a natural consequence of dust, gas, nebulae, rogue planets, neutron stars, black holes, and all the other things that could theoretically interfere with hyperspace travel and necessitate mapping.

Hyperdrive can be much faster because they know where to go in their own galaxy. They don't know where to go in the Milky Way and they're not going to be able to read maps from Milky Way civilizations without a lot of work to emulate the software and hardware used to read them, and so even venturing into the halo is probably not going to be that much of a help into getting where they want to go.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

The Unknown Regions are whacked. Maps tend to show them as fluctuating between a third and a fifth of the disk, other sources say that they have about a sixth of the stellar mass, some sources say that they have only 1% of the galaxy's stars, and some sources say that they're "unknown" because there's an energy field which runs through them and shuts off hyperspace travel through it. There's a couple sources that suggest that they're largely regions of the galactic halo, but that doesn't jive particularly well with what the maps say, since they present large portions of the galaxy as being unpopulated and unmapped.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Ted C
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4486
Joined: 2002-07-07 11:00am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Ted C »

Destructionator XIII wrote:They sent "thousands" of probe droids, probably to places they suspected the Rebels would be, and even then, only really found it with sheer luck after spending presumably years on it (the time between anh and esb). It was Vader's intuition that convinced them.
You are describing the difficulties inherent in finding a small base that is actively trying to avoid detection. The major Federation worlds are broadcasting their locations quite clearly with interstellar communications systems, and they've been at it for decades (some for centuries or more). There are message relays and beacons and starships travelling among these worlds, most of them engaged in communication with other ships and planets all of them carrying navigational charts. Finding major Federation worlds will not be difficult.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776

"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

Ted C wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:They sent "thousands" of probe droids, probably to places they suspected the Rebels would be, and even then, only really found it with sheer luck after spending presumably years on it (the time between anh and esb). It was Vader's intuition that convinced them.
You are describing the difficulties inherent in finding a small base that is actively trying to avoid detection. The major Federation worlds are broadcasting their locations quite clearly with interstellar communications systems, and they've been at it for decades (some for centuries or more). There are message relays and beacons and starships travelling among these worlds, most of them engaged in communication with other ships and planets all of them carrying navigational charts. Finding major Federation worlds will not be difficult.
Message relays, beacons, and starships are all smaller than planets and can be placed in interstellar space or in orbit around O, A, B, L, and M stars that are unlikely to bear life, creating dead ends. The Empire also has no way to filter out Federation signals specifically without figuring out how to interpret and decode them, which is going to consume time. Finally, there are only a few examples that refer to "subspace" as being a part of Star Wars communications technology, so it's doubtful as to whether they can pick up on Milky Way FTL communications at all! Even if they happen upon Federation navigational charts, they still have to figure out how to read them, which is also going to take time.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Ted C
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4486
Joined: 2002-07-07 11:00am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Ted C »

Bakustra wrote:Message relays, beacons, and starships are all smaller than planets and can be placed in interstellar space or in orbit around O, A, B, L, and M stars that are unlikely to bear life, creating dead ends. The Empire also has no way to filter out Federation signals specifically without figuring out how to interpret and decode them, which is going to consume time. Finally, there are only a few examples that refer to "subspace" as being a part of Star Wars communications technology, so it's doubtful as to whether they can pick up on Milky Way FTL communications at all! Even if they happen upon Federation navigational charts, they still have to figure out how to read them, which is also going to take time.
The sheer volume of communications traffic will make major worlds easy to identify from the ships and minor worlds. Beacons and relays will be layed out in logical patterns between important planets and facilities. If the Empire can pick up subspace communications at all, they will be able to quickly find key planets in the Milky Way.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776

"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

There are how many other civilizations bordering the Federation? The Klingons, Romulans, Breen, Cardassians, Ferengi, Tholians, and an unknown number of smaller powers, all of whom are sending their own communications, and then that runs into the problem of picking out which ones are the Federation, along with raising the real, deeper question of why they're trying to attack the Federation in the first place.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
Ted C
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4486
Joined: 2002-07-07 11:00am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Ted C »

Bakustra wrote:There are how many other civilizations bordering the Federation? The Klingons, Romulans, Breen, Cardassians, Ferengi, Tholians, and an unknown number of smaller powers, all of whom are sending their own communications, and then that runs into the problem of picking out which ones are the Federation, along with raising the real, deeper question of why they're trying to attack the Federation in the first place.
And monitoring communications, even if you didn't actually understand what was being said, would probably allow you to distinguish territories and boundaries after some analysis. You act like the Empire would have to instantly understand everything in order to gather information about a potential target.

Start looking at planning an attack as a process. They can get basic navigational information pretty easily. They can probably pick out an isolated target without much difficulty, like a small colony. It won't matter too much whose colony they contact; technology is very standardized in Star Trek, so it won't matter much if they're talking to humans or klingons or romulans or ferengi, the first person they talk to will probably have a universal translator (assuming the existence of a language barrier), and that should get them to where they can communicate in a fairly short time. Once the language barrier is broken, they can do serious interrogation, which will get them the lay of the land. They'll be able to listen in on open communications pretty easily.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776

"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Bakustra »

No, I'm saying that they don't have any way to sort the signals out between one power or another without being able to interpret the signals, which is quite different from being able to understand them once interpreted, and so they would have to spend time doing this, and breaking codes, and so on, and so forth, and that this raises the deeper question of why they'd invade without knowing anything about the Milky Way, as this presumes.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
harbringer
Padawan Learner
Posts: 479
Joined: 2003-12-01 09:02am
Location: Outreach - Lyran Alliance
Contact:

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by harbringer »

ok this is my personal opinion

The fact people took an op about the relevance of the St vs Sw debate and turned it into one explains it. People are interested some are entirely invested in this debate. I am a big star wars fan I love boba fett, but I have friends that dress as John luc Picard. Like anything people are interested in the what if's keep the debate going. If there ever is a vs movie made like aliens v preds everyone will hate it. In a historical context it's like people asking what would have happened if Rome or china had kept going?. I am not sure where the post is but once I argued from both sides different ways to solve a hostage situation. In essence they are different rather than better, of course with a long history of conflict wars is strong in that area. It's fuzzier if you compare them to 40k or who verse, and a little more one sided.

So there will always be someone willing to argue the position while they remain relevant to society . I guess star trek and star wars are winners since people care
mutanthamster
Redshirt
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-10-12 02:46pm

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by mutanthamster »

I guess star trek and star wars are winners since people care
I would go along with that as the most profound contribution to the debate so far.
jmsmith
Redshirt
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-01-09 03:54am

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by jmsmith »

there are a few simple reasons why this debate persists:
1) most importantly, because star wars nerds think it is cooler to be a star wars nerd than be a star trek nerd
2) star wars nerds fail to accept star wars as sci-fantasy, and trek as sci-fi.
3) as just mentioned in #2, and adding that a franchise with twice as many full-length features and two decades of television eposodes... one can appreciate an "apples v oranges" comparison.
4) duh, ST wins hands down. hundreds of species, thousands of ships, fact-based weapons logistics (not fantastical bs). but ok, trek has transporters and time travel... still based on sci-theory anyway :)

all that said... I like both. SW for the epic story, ground-breaking movie tech, and jar jar (lol), & ST for the thousand or so stories of a human future i'd very much like to see, funny-yet-intriguing movies, short skirts, and so much more. so yeah, I like both... but I love trek. and best part is, there's more trek comin'!
User avatar
Imperial528
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 2010-05-03 06:19pm
Location: New England

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Imperial528 »

jmsmith wrote:there are a few simple reasons why this debate persists:
1) most importantly, because star wars nerds think it is cooler to be a star wars nerd than be a star trek nerd
2) star wars nerds fail to accept star wars as sci-fantasy, and trek as sci-fi.
3) as just mentioned in #2, and adding that a franchise with twice as many full-length features and two decades of television eposodes... one can appreciate an "apples v oranges" comparison.
4) duh, ST wins hands down. hundreds of species, thousands of ships, fact-based weapons logistics (not fantastical bs). but ok, trek has transporters and time travel... still based on sci-theory anyway :)

all that said... I like both. SW for the epic story, ground-breaking movie tech, and jar jar (lol), & ST for the thousand or so stories of a human future i'd very much like to see, funny-yet-intriguing movies, short skirts, and so much more. so yeah, I like both... but I love trek. and best part is, there's more trek comin'!
Image
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Batman »

Trek elaborated on weapons logistics? I must have missed that. Probably something that happened in DS9 or ENT. Because from what I remember TOS, the movies or TNG never touched upon the subject while VOY used every torpedo she started out with several dozen times over.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Darth Tedious
Jedi Master
Posts: 1082
Joined: 2011-01-16 08:48pm

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Darth Tedious »

Batman wrote:Trek elaborated on weapons logistics? I must have missed that. Probably something that happened in DS9 or ENT. Because from what I remember TOS, the movies or TNG never touched upon the subject while VOY used every torpedo she started out with several dozen times over.
World's Greatest Detective my bottom!

Didn't you know?

NADION PRATICLES ARE REAL
thus:
PHASER WEAPON LOGISTICS ARE FACT-BASED AND NOT FANTASTICAL BS

Better get a copy of the TNG Technical Manual

you'll find it in Non-Fiction.
"Darth Tedious just showed why women can go anywhere they want because they are, in effect, mobile kitchens." - RazorOutlaw

"That could never happen because super computers." - Stark

"Don't go there girl! Talk to the VTOL cause the glass canopy ain't listening!" - Shroomy
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by Batman »

I happen to have a copy of the TNG Tech Manual, thank you very much. And as the out-of-universe comments were actually often quite entertaining I'm pleased to say it wasn't a complete waste of money. And I think somebody didn't get the joke. (Hint: Logistics has nothing to do with whether or not something makes logical sense)
A joke you have to explain is generally considered to not be particularly funny to begin with, Master Bruce
Well traditionally, I officially don't have a sense of humour, so I wouldn't be particularly good at this now would I.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Post Reply