Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

Why does the SW vs ST debate still exist?

Post by the atom »

Hello all. Rather new here, though some of you might know me from Spacebattles. I just have to ask one question: why, after all these years, does the SW vs. ST debate still persist? The horrific economic and brute force disparity has been settled time and time again. I've always loved Star Trek, yet when put on a strict versus debate with Star Wars, it just doesn't work. Why must the ST fans keep coming back for more punishment? :(

Well that's my existential rant for the day.
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
HMS Sophia
Jedi Master
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2010-08-22 07:47am
Location: Watching the levee break

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

Post by HMS Sophia »

Because the world hates you...

Not but more seriously, I think it's because there are two groups of people in existence. The first are obsessed with their 'side' being the best, and cannot accept that their 'side' could be inferior. They see it as a battle, and something that is very important.
The second group are simply those people who are new. Some of these, when presented with old debates, accept it and are happy. Others, they become the above. These people are retarded.
"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation
User avatar
Ryag Han
Youngling
Posts: 138
Joined: 2009-12-27 04:47pm

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

Post by Ryag Han »

well i guess simply because people have really nothing better to do. like me. just pick a side and...troll.
like i am about to do... :mrgreen:
95% of people laugh at other people because they are different. Copy this into your profile if you are a part of the 5% that laughs at the other 95% because they're all the same

Image
RAT-FLAIR
User avatar
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

barnest2 wrote:Because the world hates you...

Not but more seriously, I think it's because there are two groups of people in existence. The first are obsessed with their 'side' being the best, and cannot accept that their 'side' could be inferior. They see it as a battle, and something that is very important.
The second group are simply those people who are new. Some of these, when presented with old debates, accept it and are happy. Others, they become the above. These people are retarded.
I suppose. I just don't understand why Trekkers always pick fights they can't handle. When they aren't wanking against ST they generally wank against 40k or something similarly powerful. Why not wank against something more realistically beatable like Starcraft or nBSG? :roll:
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

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

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

Because every now and then there's some new piece of material for either "side" - a book, a game, maybe even a film or TV show. And this brings up heaps of new stuff to talk about and analyse, and it all has to be factored in to the old debates and so forth.

Also, sometimes people new to the debates can see something in a completely different way that other debaters have missed due to focusing on other things.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Tritio
Padawan Learner
Posts: 185
Joined: 2009-09-09 03:10am
Location: Singapore

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

Post by Tritio »

What debate?
As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?), these questions have already been settled long ago.
User avatar
FedRebel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1071
Joined: 2004-10-12 12:38am

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

Post by FedRebel »

It's mainly new people who come in to debate either having or thinking that they have new information and finding an environment that runs counter to their knowledge.

There are also a few pro-Trek veterans whom hold onto their views of Trek superiority, they offer new comers with a favorably worldview of the debate, and said information bolsters the confidence of the new comers to spread the wisdom.

Unless ILM makes a space battle film that shows a lone SarDestroyer shattering Galaxy Class starships with single tubrolaser shots...and both Lucasfilm and Paramount say it's canon in their respective franchises....AND George Lucas, as well of whoevers irrefutably in charge of Trek, both say it's canon in their respective franchises...AND :roll: all possible complaints from the Pro-Trek side are ruthlessly countered by official statements

...then maybe (and that's a visible universe sized maybe) the debate will finally be put to rest
User avatar
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

Tritio wrote:What debate?
As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?), these questions have already been settled long ago.
And yet this particular forum still exists :roll:
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
HMS Sophia
Jedi Master
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2010-08-22 07:47am
Location: Watching the levee break

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

Post by HMS Sophia »

the atom wrote:
Tritio wrote:What debate?
As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?), these questions have already been settled long ago.
And yet this particular forum still exists :roll:
Mainly because we have found plenty of other things to talk about. Have you noticed that the SW V ST forum is now a sub forum? We have history debates, new and politics discussions, we have a gaming forum, And our sci-fi board gets much more chat than SwvSt. So it's not really a massive thing anymore...
"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation
User avatar
Stofsk
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12925
Joined: 2003-11-10 12:36am

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

Post by Stofsk »

It's still a pretty arrogant attitude to dismiss it all as 'these questions were settled long ago'. Like Adam said, there are plenty of trolls on both sides, and plenty of areas of discussion that nobody really touches upon because it's not a part of The Great Debate.
Image
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 »

Destructionator XIII wrote:e) There's still a lot of detail that can be legitimately debated
That's definitely the best reason for this subforum's continued existance.
the atom wrote:I just don't understand why Trekkers always pick fights they can't handle.
Because they're crusaders for a cause! Because it's all a big Warsie conspiracy that must be exposed!

Well, that's what they say, after they get banned and come back with sockpuppet accounts.
"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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

What Saxon ICS impact?
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
HMS Sophia
Jedi Master
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2010-08-22 07:47am
Location: Watching the levee break

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

Post by HMS Sophia »

the atom wrote:What Saxon ICS impact?
In the Incredible cross sections that saxton wrote, he lists either the fire-power or the generator capacity for a clone troop transport, the acclamator. The figure is insane, and it means the troop transport has fire-power levels several powers of ten higher than a star trek warship.

Oh, and it's canon as well. There is no argument on that. So all of a sudden you have canon figures (Actual figures, not guesstimations) for the SW firepower.
"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

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

Post by Connor MacLeod »

Destructionator XIII wrote:For the Acclamator, he lists the guns... with the power in a fucking parenthetical.

When I first heard about this, I figured there was a block of prose that explained it. But, I looked it up and, nope, it's a little aside. I kid you not.

Image

From page 23, with some irrelevant parts snipped (the transparent part of the picture is there to show where I snipped some stuff).


So that little (200 gigatons per shot) added a lot of bullshit to the debate.
Small nitpick: Technically, at least according to what I remember Curtis telling me, its actualyl 50 GT per shot. that's 200 GT for the whole turret (which is of course, four barreled.) No idea on ROF but I'm guessing it's not too fast at max firepower (or if it is it can't be sustained for long, like with AT-ATs)
Now, I'm a relative newcomer so take what I say as hearsay.
Well I was there at least for some of the latter parts of the "Great Debate" and I'm considered unoffically one of the Lesser Evils of the Warsie side, so...
Once upon a time, people would watch the movies and do frame by frame shit to draw their conclusions. Then the ICS came out with that parenthetical.
Actually only a few people did the frame by frame stuff, the rest of us pretty much went along with what the smarter people (or at least those we considered smarter) did. The vast majority were more or less grunts or cannon fodder of varying degrees of intellect (I more or less fell into the latter position for the vast majority of it, and even then I tended to go more for research and looking up EU sources rather than dealing with the movies/visual data. I was good at picking out obscure tidbits and piecing it all together, because I've always enjoyed doing that. I still do.)
Now, debates go like this:

Warsie: 200 gigatons. Canon. Deal With It.

Trekkie: <spends half his time nitpicking this - is it canon? Do I have to deal with it? What is the context of that statement?>

Warsie: 200 gigatons. Canon. Deal With It.

rinse

spin

dry
Pre-ICS you replace those with various figures on Mike or Curtis' site and it means the same. Trekkies had their own champions at various points in time. Vast majority of the time was spent trying to either bolster or demonstrate why one side's numbers were valid and/or possibly undercutting the other side's numbers.

The one difference is that where the debate happened affected what sort of discussions took place. ASVS for example tended to have alot of the more "large scale" stuff that you see Mike mocking on the main site. SB, where I wasted most of my time, usually focused less on "Whole Empire vs Whole federation" but individual ship to ship combats (ISD vs GCS). I remember most Trekkies wouldn't even question the Death Star figures, or the industrial potential of the empire or the advantage it gave, it mostly just came down to whose favorite starship was better, and that had its own brand of hilarity/stupidity. (many of us weren't terribly bright. I include myself in this category again.)
repeat for the other portions I left in that picture too. The effective thing here for the warsie is he can stay in the offensive with a single message, which means the other guy is liable to trip up first.
I can't really answer for other people, but at least for me the ICS represented something that couldn't be easily nitpicked away. I got tired of trying to do calcs, piece together facts, and generally wasting hours and hours upon an argument only to have some smug twit come along and try to poke holes in it with shitty-ass logic. I felt it was essentially cheating, not "playing by the rules." I was at least (trying) to have a consistent and somewhat logical approach, and others just tried to rules lawyer their way to a win. Different, conflicting mindsets I suppose.

When the ICS came along, I always got the impression many of the trekkies felt (and still do) like somehow SW had "cheated" with the ICS. Of course, I think once the ICS came along, you also weren't forced to 'do the work' anymore - you could just cite an ireffutable source and that was that. Kinda boring, and kinda lazy, so I can kinda see why other smight hate it or regard it as cheating.
But the analogy comes in - if the hypothetical vs movie was made, I think it'd follow that same pattern. Play the one hit kill clip. Canon. Deal With It. Then the battles over each part...

a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The real problem with the "debate" is that it's been something of a tribal phenomenon much like a football or baseball time. Each side is more concerned about its own side winning, and some will go to any lengths to do that. It' and general inertia/tradition is probably what keeps it going along like some shambling zombie corpse. It's not that SW vs ST can't be interesting, its just that the way its 'traditionally' been done has no more value, and trying to continue to pit a full Empire against a full Federation (or full ST) in a duel to the death (hah! TRADITION) is silly and pointless.
User avatar
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

Ah I see. I thought by 'Saxon impact' you guys meant that there was a visual demonstration of such firepower. I've been going around trying to get actual yields, while getting around the
'TERA-PETATONZ' BS that I've caught a lot of warsies wanking around. For alot of warsies, 'ICS' means "make up whatever yield wins the debate". I've heard people legitimately claim that a ISD is capable of putting out a teratons to petatons per gun.
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
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 »

Teratons per gun absolutely works if you go with the ICS/CCS figures. ISD1, 7.73E24W, 16 guns, say 50% going to guns (they're supposed to be able to route most of their power to guns) gives you not quite 58 TT. Cutting it to a more conservative 10%, that's still 5.8TT.
Of course, that leaves out refire rates, wear and tear on the guns and their mounts, how deeply this cuts into their fuel supplies (and whatever else consumables turbolasers need) etc.
PT per gun I find a bit overboard (per broadside, maybe) but with massive use of capacitors for one single alpha strike I guess it may be possible, but I don't think I've ever seen those numbers in anything official, at least not for anything below an SSD.
'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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

Batman wrote:Teratons per gun absolutely works if you go with the ICS/CCS figures. ISD1, 7.73E24W, 16 guns, say 50% going to guns (they're supposed to be able to route most of their power to guns) gives you not quite 58 TT. Cutting it to a more conservative 10%, that's still 5.8TT.
Of course, that leaves out refire rates, wear and tear on the guns and their mounts, how deeply this cuts into their fuel supplies (and whatever else consumables turbolasers need) etc.
PT per gun I find a bit overboard (per broadside, maybe) but with massive use of capacitors for one single alpha strike I guess it may be possible, but I don't think I've ever seen those numbers in anything official, at least not for anything below an SSD.
But we've never seen that type of firepower used before! Even during a BDZ where there's absolutely no reason to hold back. The highest legitimate figure I can think of for Danyanko is maybe in the high GT range. Using those numbers from that SD essay, along with some sloppy conversions(I'm not very good at math), I figure the BDZ of Danyanko was maybe around 400-500 TT spread out over multiple guns, over the course of several hours (as I my understanding of the event went). However there's still a few variables I don't yet know, (such as the amount of guns used in bombardment, length of bombardment, energy distrution between guns)so I'll have to do a bit more work before I can say much for sure.

What I can say for sure, is that if a ISD was capable of a PT broadside, the BDZ of Danyanko would have taken seconds. There would been no even cratering. I doubt there would have even been a crust. Sending a mop-up team would have been irrelevant because there's no point investigating a sea of lava. :roll:
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
Tritio
Padawan Learner
Posts: 185
Joined: 2009-09-09 03:10am
Location: Singapore

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

Post by Tritio »

Stofsk wrote:It's still a pretty arrogant attitude to dismiss it all as 'these questions were settled long ago'. Like Adam said, there are plenty of trolls on both sides, and plenty of areas of discussion that nobody really touches upon because it's not a part of The Great Debate.
Sure, there may still be other unexplored areas; that's why I specifically said "As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?)". Those questions have pretty much been repeated and answered many times over via RARs, force subs and other discussions drawing upon the movies, books, ICS, and other grades of canonised material. And they were settled long ago.
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 »

the atom wrote:
Batman wrote:Teratons per gun absolutely works if you go with the ICS/CCS figures. ISD1, 7.73E24W, 16 guns, say 50% going to guns (they're supposed to be able to route most of their power to guns) gives you not quite 58 TT. Cutting it to a more conservative 10%, that's still 5.8TT.
Of course, that leaves out refire rates, wear and tear on the guns and their mounts, how deeply this cuts into their fuel supplies (and whatever else consumables turbolasers need) etc.
PT per gun I find a bit overboard (per broadside, maybe) but with massive use of capacitors for one single alpha strike I guess it may be possible, but I don't think I've ever seen those numbers in anything official, at least not for anything below an SSD.
But we've never seen that type of firepower used before!
The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.
Even during a BDZ where there's absolutely no reason to hold back.
Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.
What I can say for sure, is that if a ISD was capable of a PT broadside, the BDZ of Danyanko would have taken seconds. There would been no even cratering. I doubt there would have even been a crust. Sending a mop-up team would have been irrelevant because there's no point investigating a sea of lava. :roll:
That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?
'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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.
In case you forgot, the inhabitants of Alderaan were hit by the Death Star, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.
Such as?
That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?
I pulled up the BDZ because it's their highest known firepower showing. All I'm saying that statements of higher firepower are unproven and have never been shown or implied in canon.
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

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

Post by Connor MacLeod »

Destructionator XIII wrote:A big difference there is you can attack their reasoning and their facts (in theory at least); there's actually something to debate against a reference to that. With the ICS number, it's primary evidence, so you can't argue its validity in general, even if you tried. Sure, you can say it doesn't apply in this situation, or there must be some interpretation/nuance you're missing, but you can't say outright "this is wrong/fallacious" (without doing canon bullshit anyway) like you can to something Mike or Curtis say on their websites, forcing the warsie back on the defensive.
Actually, the ICS got attacked the same as Mike or Curtis did - legalistic nitpickery or "reasonable doubt" tedium-inducing shit. Indeed, some considered the ICS into a questionable status because Curtis had written it, and some argued he had some evil, anti-Trek ulterior motive in doing so (or that people like Mike and Wayne had influenced Curtis to stick those numbers in.) That's not really true though - Curtis is completely uncaring about vs debating or ST and his only connection to it was via Mike or Wayne largely. Sad really since he's become such a infamous and much-maligned figure as a result of the ICS and his work. One of the reasons (other being real life) that put his site into indefinite hiatus. Hell even now the ICS is regarded as being inherently suspect despite being a published SW work, just because Curtis was involved - a bit ironic considering how some other authors like Karen Traviss get relegated into that category for similar reasons, but eh.

I'm also not really sure the source matters as much as the internal consistency, anyhow. There is, for example, the Dark Empire sourcebook reference that puts the Eclipse superlaser at being something like 1/3 or 1/8 the power of the Death Star. It's perfectly legit as far as canon goes, yet its pretty absurd from an internal consistency/logic perspective because SW doesn't make leaps quite that absurd, the acceleraton and recoil issues would be ludicrous, and the fuel concerns would be even worse than with the Death STar.

The funny thing is is that since the ICS came out I've actually started caring less about the Teratons. I think I started to care less about the debate after they came out, and I even started thinking of ways to poke holes in it, just to keep the debate interesting. I still think they are accurate, mind, but I think they fit into the overall universe differently than they've been presented in the 'vs' context. Hell, I actually tend to like the "older" pre-ics calcs more for "standard" performance.
Thankfully, the interpretation/nuance angle has a lot of wiggle room, so there's some stuff to talk about.
When you get down to it it really is about the interpretations of evidence. (is it just special effects, or not?) My advice to people who dislike the ICS is to read it. It gives us some hard data, but it doesnt explain everything, and that leaves the 'wiggle room' you allude to. Ex: 200 GT quad TLs are at "maximum firepower", and we dont know what drawbacks or what uses those are for (They aren't likely to be standard combat settings.) heavy TL turrets may be able to throw out TT bolts, but that doesn't mean they're effective in all circumstances - if TLS were physical projectiles, I'd assume a higher energy "bolt" might actually move slower than a lower energy one. At the very least, a higher output is going to cause more recoil problems which can hamper tracking/targeting.

Alternately, ICS stats represent a "maximum potential" for starship design if built to that level. They can iadd in teraton guns, shields, etc. if needed but they don't usually for maintenance or cost reasons (who knows how expensive that can run to fuel, wear and tear on weapons, etc.?) The SW galaxy is also a largely stable one, and doesn't need to have military with that level of firepower. Indeed, restricting weaponry like that would help keep the peace, as fewer individuals can easily destroy planets. Ships that DO possess that level of firepower become something like nuclear-carrying aircraft or naval vessels (Carriers, subs, etc.) in a sense. HEll, if you argue TLs as projectiles, they could very well simply be special-yield "tactical/strategic" ammo!
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

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

Post by Connor MacLeod »

Dankyo isn't a BDZ and it isn't a flawless indicator of firepower. THere are actually very very few indicators like that, and even those that exist will still get nitpicked by some people.

BDZ calcs as they exist are best going to be handled the way Mike does it - ignorethe 'crust melting' bit and deal more with extinction elvel events. Note, however, that the MECHANISM by which you render a planet uninhabitable matters as well as the type of target. A Coruscant type world will be harder to destroy than a colony world where everyone is above ground, and some forms of attack (heat ray style energy weapons, as Luke Campbell defines them anyhow) are less effective than others (explosives or even asteroid impacts.) However, the way Mike does it makes them hard to use as "unassailable" calcs because they involve assumptiosn and assumptions can always be attacked.
User avatar
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

When has a BDZ melted the crust of a planet?
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
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 »

the atom wrote:
The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.
In case you forgot, the inhabitants of Alderaan were hit by the Death Star, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm sorry, you said we've never seen that kind of firepower used, and we definitely did :P If you meant we never saw that kind of firepower out of a Star Destroyer, you should've said so. :P And yes, that was a nitpick.
Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.
Such as?
The same ones I already mentioned, perhaps? You know, wear and tear, consumables usage, that kind of thing?
That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?
I pulled up the BDZ because it's their highest known firepower showing. All I'm saying that statements of higher firepower are unproven and have never been shown or implied in canon.
Err yes they have. Nevermind downscaling from the DS1 (which gets you massively higher firepower-as in orders of magnitude higher-than the ICS/CCS state), both the ISD reactor power and ability to direct 'most' of its output to weapons are canon. Which, I'd like to remind you, I already mentioned.
'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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 320
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

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

Post by the atom »

Batman wrote:I'm sorry, you said we've never seen that kind of firepower used, and we definitely did :P If you meant we never saw that kind of firepower out of a Star Destroyer, you should've said so. :P And yes, that was a nitpick.
Ah yes I should have been more specific with my wording then :P
The same ones I already mentioned, perhaps? You know, wear and tear, consumables usage, that kind of thing?
That's true I suppose
Err yes they have. Nevermind downscaling from the DS1 (which gets you massively higher firepower-as in orders of magnitude higher-than the ICS/CCS state), both the ISD reactor power and ability to direct 'most' of its output to weapons are canon. Which, I'd like to remind you, I already mentioned.
:? The question is could they actually use that amount of power without all their guns suddenly exploding? Considering that they ordinarily dole out firepower in the high megatons-low gigatons, wouldn't that kind of energy direction be like trying to channel a city's power grid through a lightbulb?
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."
Post Reply