Have Trekkies used these arguments?

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby DarthPooky » 2016-06-10 02:19am

So there there are two idiotic Trekkie arguments that I suspect some dye hard Trekkies think but I haven't really seen argued on this forum or others. They more or less sound like this.

• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12043
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2016-06-10 02:27am

DarthPooky wrote:So there there are two idiotic Trekkie arguments that I suspect some dye hard Trekkies think but I haven't really seen argued on this forum or others. They more or less sound like this.

• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.


Is life really so boring, or is the current level of internet stupidity so insufficient, that we must look for new arguments to mock? :lol:

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least the phaser one, or something like it, before, but I can't recall where (probably here though).

Though actually, phasers are great for taking out large numbers of infantry due to the wide beam mode. Where they fall short, though, is in their dubious effectiveness against heavy armour and shielding (like, say, the armour of an AT-AT walker or a theatre shield-things Star Wars has in abundance).

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-10 05:24am

DarthPooky wrote:Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.
I've never heard that said, but they can take out hundreds of people in some off-screen mentions in TOS, but they were equipped with primitive weapons
• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

A lot more acceptable actually; if Star Wars had no planetary shields, and phasers (which can stun from orbit or drill through a planetary crust neatly) ground combat would be less important. They offer a lot more dialable force and limited escalation than turbolasers, and better anti-fortification capacity.

Phasers actually are an excellent bombardment weapon, and the Galactic Republic/Empire would almost certainly love to buy them.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-06-11 03:43am

The first argument was noted on Mike's ground warfare pages, but the second is both somewhat more clever and more true. While the main site ignores air support for the purpose of the comparison, it isn't entirely fair to do so in a realistic comparison.

In reality, air support already makes unprotected armies rather less effective. But when there is no ground threat, air support alone is often somewhat impotent. There are plenty of places to hide, both in cities and woodland areas. While the ever expanding growth of sensors and guided weapons is making this less effective in many respects, it is still an issue, especially in cities in which collateral damage is a concern.

As was shown with the infamous Romulan plan for Vulcan, if a mere 2,000 soldiers can capture a species homeworld within the Federation, such tactics have value there as well.

As noted, Star Wars also has rather extensive anti-orbital defenses for this reason. Star Trek generally keeps the fight in orbit with defensive stations and starships themselves. When that doesn't happen, as with the Vulcan example, the Federation has problems. The main reason for ground armies in SW is often about neutralizing such defenses. There is also value in capturing rather than destroying territory, which is an issue with SW level firepower and why we never actually see capital ship weapons fired upon planets.

Also, how effective would widebeam stun be against armored soldiers?

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12043
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2016-06-11 03:55am

Hard to say. I don't believe its ever been used on-screen against armoured soldiers.

Of course, we've seen materials that can block phasers, but I don't know if their's any armour that can. However, personal shields, like the Borg use, certainly can, so I would expect that something like a Droideka shield could too.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-11 10:37am

Adam Reynolds wrote:Also, how effective would widebeam stun be against armored soldiers?


Klingon warrior tunics have been shown to blunt even kill settings.



So I'd assume armour is protective.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10433
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-06-11 10:57am

I suspect that Klingon armor is made from something that can disapate heat and other effects from energy weapons while looking essentially soft leather and cloth.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-11 05:16pm

I like to imagine that it is sort of space coat-of-plates or Brigandine, there's actually a few occasions when their warrior tunics seem to protect them.

Image

Here's a reproduction Brigandine, the inside of the top part of his outfit is lined with plates of steel.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13219
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby RogueIce » 2016-06-11 05:34pm

NecronLord wrote:
Adam Reynolds wrote:Also, how effective would widebeam stun be against armored soldiers?


Klingon warrior tunics have been shown to blunt even kill settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HI3-7qtrZg

So I'd assume so.

I like that first Security officer. Stands in cover, takes the time to report the situation. And then heroically jumps away from cover, leaving himself completely exposed, so he can take a disruptor blast to the chest.

Oh Starfleet Security...never change. :lol:

(edit: Just to preempt, I'm sure we can find plenty of examples where Star Wars troops are equally stupid. Got to love Hollywood tactics!)
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-11 05:56pm

RogueIce wrote:I like that first Security officer. Stands in cover, takes the time to report the situation. And then heroically jumps away from cover, leaving himself completely exposed, so he can take a disruptor blast to the chest.

Oh Starfleet Security...never change. :lol:

(edit: Just to preempt, I'm sure we can find plenty of examples where Star Wars troops are equally stupid. Got to love Hollywood tactics!)


In fairness, offense is the best part of defence; going in there to shoot them isn't totally stupid, if you don't know that they're armed.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13219
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby RogueIce » 2016-06-11 07:05pm

NecronLord wrote:
RogueIce wrote:I like that first Security officer. Stands in cover, takes the time to report the situation. And then heroically jumps away from cover, leaving himself completely exposed, so he can take a disruptor blast to the chest.

Oh Starfleet Security...never change. :lol:

(edit: Just to preempt, I'm sure we can find plenty of examples where Star Wars troops are equally stupid. Got to love Hollywood tactics!)


In fairness, offense is the best part of defence; going in there to shoot them isn't totally stupid, if you don't know that they're armed.

It would be, given they're Klingons (and presumably stronger than your average hew-mon) and their clothing can resist phaser fire. To hop right into an enclosed area with your back against the wall? Even if they weren't armed he was just asking to be easily overpowered and slammed into that wall.

Ironically enough, given we're talking about wide-beam phaser settings and such in this thread, that would have been the perfect time for it: set the phaser appropriately and just stick your hand around the corner and push the button until it runs dry or whatever. Assuming those early dustbusters had such a feature.

Side note: Of course, locking them up with battle armor capable of resisting your weapons would seem rather dumb in the first place, but I don't know the context of that episode so maybe it was done hurriedly and they didn't have time to get them into a prisoner jumpsuit or whatever.
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-11 07:59pm

I think they were honoured for their dissent, and sending them back to the Klingons dressed in prisoner outfits might be an insult? But I don't think we saw prisoner clothing very often in TNG.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby DarthPooky » 2016-06-14 01:42am

Though actually, phasers are great for taking out large numbers of infantry due to the wide beam mode. Where they fall short, though, is in their dubious effectiveness against heavy armour and shielding (like, say, the armour of an AT-AT walker or a theatre shield-things Star Wars has in abundance).


Wide beam has only ever been shown to be used on stun which leads me to believe that ether they can't be used on wide beam kill or there are some big limitations to using wide beam kill. The later I think is most likely because of the obvious beam density drop of the farther away you get. Also we rarely see wide beam stun used when the situation calls for it. I also wonder if a Phaser stun would would work on storm troopers because of the full body armour.

I've never heard that said, but they can take out hundreds of people in some off-screen mentions in TOS, but they were equipped with primitive weapons


That was Sayed by Captain Tracy in the Omega Glory but did you look at that guy when he Sayed that? I mean he was all shell shocked it wouldn't surprise me if he was exaggerating. Also with the charging primitives point as mentioned earlier him and the Cooms were probably defending from a fortified defensible position with the Cooms probably shooting arrows or something which all add up.

A lot more acceptable actually; if Star Wars had no planetary shields, and phasers (which can stun from orbit or drill through a planetary crust neatly) ground combat would be less important. They offer a lot more dialable force and limited escalation than turbolasers, and better anti-fortification capacity.

Phasers actually are an excellent bombardment weapon, and the Galactic Republic/Empire would almost certainly love to buy them.


Really? because as with what Adam Reynolds pointed out there are other defences to help protect from orbital strikes than just planetary shields. Smaller shields like the one on Hoth. Equipment to jam or scramble sensors which would increase the chance of collateral damage ground to orbit weapons platforms like the Hoth Ion canon orbital weapons platforms and space stations and so on. Also the Federation may still be less inclined to bombarded from orbit (more so in the TNG era) even if the ships Phasers are set to stun because there still may be fatalities from the old physically week or sick.

User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1815
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby U.P. Cinnabar » 2016-06-14 02:57am

DarthPooky wrote:Wide beam has only ever been shown to be used on stun which leads me to believe that ether they can't be used on wide beam kill or there are some big limitations to using wide beam kill. The later I think is most likely because of the obvious beam density drop of the farther away you get. Also we rarely see wide beam stun used when the situation calls for it. I also wonder if a Phaser stun would would work on storm troopers because of the full body armour.


Probably not; it would depend on the density of the armor, and the material it's made of. Now, as for wide beam, a directed-energy weapon does depend on a coherent beam to work, so a wide-angle shot would have the same effect on a group of targets as shining a flashlight at them. You'd be better off with a DEW with rapid fire and a steerable focal array, so it can sweep a given area in front of it.

That being said, the wide-angle stun setting was probably rarely used because it was incredibly power consumptive.

That was Sayed by Captain Tracy in the Omega Glory but did you look at that guy when he Sayed that? I mean he was all shell shocked it wouldn't surprise me if he was exaggerating. Also with the charging primitives point as mentioned earlier him and the Cooms were probably defending from a fortified defensible position with the Cooms probably shooting arrows or something which all add up.


IIRC, he also burned through a shitload of phaser power packs burning down all those Yangs.
"When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker. When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.

And, if the implications of that bother you, the time to do something about it is before you send him out."
—David Drake


"Oh, but you did! You turn on any of my crew, you turn on me! But, since that's a concept you can't seem to wrap your head around, then, you've got no place here. You did it to me, Jayne, and that's a fact."

—Malcolm Reynolds, captain of the Firefly-class hauler Serenity,in a nutshell

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-14 11:08am

DarthPooky wrote:
I've never heard that said, but they can take out hundreds of people in some off-screen mentions in TOS, but they were equipped with primitive weapons


That was Sayed by Captain Tracy in the Omega Glory but did you look at that guy when he Sayed that? I mean he was all shell shocked it wouldn't surprise me if he was exaggerating. Also with the charging primitives point as mentioned earlier him and the Cooms were probably defending from a fortified defensible position with the Cooms probably shooting arrows or something which all add up.


The Omega Glory wrote:SPOCK: Captain Tracey's reserve belt packs. Empty. Found among the remains of several hundred Yang bodies.


Spock is not known for his exaggeration. I think it likely the writers imagined something akin to the battle of Rorke's Drift, as the film Zulu was then-recent.

Pretty explicit that Tracey was in among them. Most likely they were spearmen for the most part, and Tracey was using them on the 'fanblade' automatic setting that TOS phasers had, IE using them as automatic weapons.
Image
(Which doesn't make them any better than any other automatic weapon you can easily carry thousands of shots for, like a blaster, though they might be better at dispersing heat, as blasters are known to become uncomfortably hot due to waste heat in some old sources, if used continuously for enough shots, I believe Luke did that when burning into Leia's cell in the ANH novel for instance)
A lot more acceptable actually; if Star Wars had no planetary shields, and phasers (which can stun from orbit or drill through a planetary crust neatly) ground combat would be less important. They offer a lot more dialable force and limited escalation than turbolasers, and better anti-fortification capacity.

Phasers actually are an excellent bombardment weapon, and the Galactic Republic/Empire would almost certainly love to buy them.


Really? because as with what Adam Reynolds pointed out there are other defences to help protect from orbital strikes than just planetary shields. Smaller shields like the one on Hoth. Equipment to jam or scramble sensors which would increase the chance of collateral damage ground to orbit weapons platforms like the Hoth Ion canon orbital weapons platforms and space stations and so on. Also the Federation may still be less inclined to bombarded from orbit (more so in the TNG era) even if the ships Phasers are set to stun because there still may be fatalities from the old physically week or sick.

Star Trek is actually just as good at planetary bombardment. In some respects it is better. If Vader had possessed a klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant class in his fleet, he could have taken the battle of Hoth without ever needing to set foot on the planet, though he might have killed Luke. Bypassing the shield. Would you like me to explain?

What it's not good at is wattage, with such things as burning through shields and killing strongly shielded warships.

Sensor jamming is irrelevant in this scenario as Vader already had reports from a probe on the ground detailing aspects of the target. They weren't exactly moving those generators. It's relevant if you want to hit moving targets, but if you're not capable of dialling in a known location on a planet to a computer, you're not capable of freakin' space travel, Lunokhod 1 could hit a known target on a planetary surface; people rely on jamming to excuse a lot of faults, but once they know a location on a planet, jamming can't stop them knowing that location.

As for less inclined, let's remember we've actually seen a starfleet captain, on his own initiative, bomb a planet to drive out the population, and relieve no censure for it from Starfleet. We've seen no such thing in canonical star wars, and even in the Legends, it requires higher authority in the Empire to order a world-ending bombardment than a captain possesses; two out of the four main Starfleet captains have given, in earnest, the order to destroy planets. No canonical personage below the rank of Grand Moff has given such an order in Star Wars.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2016-06-14 01:47pm

The thing that often makes phasers more effective is that they seem to have much greater precision at the starship level. The overwhelming firepower of turbolasers is such that they don't have as much precision at that level. Even smaller weapons also don't seem to be used to that degree. Even in Legends, the only example of precise Imperial orbital bombardment that comes to mind is against the Coral Vanda in Dark Force Rising(Thrawn trilogy), and even that case was somewhat limited in its effectiveness in that sense. When turbolasers are used against ground targets it is always extremely indiscriminately, with the most notable example being Malak's order to flatten Taris, an act not dissimilar from using the Death Star.

The precise option for SW in general is air rather than orbital support. There is a reason the attack on Geonosis uses swarms of gunships rather than turbolaser fire, as did several notable operations in Clone Wars(one of which being Geonosis again, though mostly with Y-wings in that case).

Though the issue of authority is largely a result of communcations ability as much as anything. Starfleet captains are given a great degree of authority because their chain of command is often unreachable in real time. In SW, any Star Destroyer in the galaxy can reach Coruscant for orders, and the use of orbital bombardment is almost akin to the use of nuclear weapons in reality. It is a tactic not often used, as it would inevitably lead to public backlash at best or retaliation in kind at worst. This is in addition to the fact that the majority of developed worlds are shielded.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-14 02:10pm

Yees, I know all that, but saying that 'they don't have the stomach for orbital bombardment' is manifestly not true, we've seen them do it.

Likewise, weapons effectiveness is about more than firepower in many cases. Trilithium resin is scary stuff.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
FedRebel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1046
Joined: 2004-10-12 12:38am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby FedRebel » 2016-06-14 05:47pm

DarthPooky wrote:• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.


I've never heard the specific claim, mentions of tactical non lethal orbit bombardment (ie. TOS: "A Piece of the Action") have been made.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.


The first bit depends on the debater, most Trekkies concede the point once Expanded Universe evidence is provided, of course there are 'those' who are "absence of evidence is evidence of absence, movies only."

The last bit is invalid as during the Dominion War, the FKR Alliance was dependent on Klingon soldiers to seize planetary surfaces...and squad level Starfleet ground operations (+ DS9: "Siege of AR558", which was a platoon level Starfleet ground force.) were observed on a few occasions.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.


Not in a very long time, the debate mostly ended 12 years ago.

Seeking out a 'fight' just to be a troll isn't very nice, core purpose of the debate was educational, both sides educated each other on their patron franchise and their logic behind the given scenario. Bad blood was only achieved when specific parties blatantly ignored provided evidence and stubbornly ignored valid counters to fraudulent claims.

The few pro Trek cults that remain should just be left be, they've made their minds and nothing will change it, the..."imperial Smackdown" would be a useless gesture and only see you banned from their ports of call. If you come across a debate on neutral ground by all means educate the masses (keep in mind that it's been done to death over a decade ago...with the bulk of 'neutral' science fiction forums banning of certain Trekkie champions celebrating the close to the overall debate.)

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 26829
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby NecronLord » 2016-06-14 05:56pm

FedRebel wrote:The last bit is invalid as during the Dominion War, the FKR Alliance was dependent on Klingon soldiers to seize planetary surfaces...


That sounds 100% plausible, but I've never heard it before. Do you know what episode it's from?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 8604
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Contact:

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Eternal_Freedom » 2016-06-14 06:06pm

Pretty sure it's from "Tears of the Prophets" when the Allied fleet invaded Chin'toka. After they take out the weapon platforms, Martok announces that landings will begin immediately. Which as Mike noted on the main site is conspicuous as we neither saw nor heard of any troop transports in that fleet, so they must have Marine-type forces on their warships.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

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
U.P. Cinnabar
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1815
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby U.P. Cinnabar » 2016-06-14 06:23pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Pretty sure it's from "Tears of the Prophets" when the Allied fleet invaded Chin'toka. After they take out the weapon platforms, Martok announces that landings will begin immediately. Which as Mike noted on the main site is conspicuous as we neither saw nor heard of any troop transports in that fleet, so they must have Marine-type forces on their warships.


Also in the DS9 finale,"What We Leave Behind," IIRC. They may have dedicated ground forces on their ships, but it's more likely that any Klingon crewer not absolutely needed for running the ship is going to be in on any ground combat taking place. If he's especially greedy for glory, the captain will probably lead the assault(or his ship's part in it) personally.

Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.


Unless those ships are otherwise engaged/prevented from providing orbital fire support. As Mike also pointed out on the main site, and as the US Armed Forces should've learned by now, you don't win battles with air/orbital strikes alone.
"When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker. When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.

And, if the implications of that bother you, the time to do something about it is before you send him out."
—David Drake


"Oh, but you did! You turn on any of my crew, you turn on me! But, since that's a concept you can't seem to wrap your head around, then, you've got no place here. You did it to me, Jayne, and that's a fact."

—Malcolm Reynolds, captain of the Firefly-class hauler Serenity,in a nutshell

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14962
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Batman » 2016-06-14 07:55pm

Depends on what you're trying to do. Occupation/conquest/liberation? Yeah, no can do. If all you're going for is 'obliteration' aerial/orbital bombardment works just fine provided you've got enough of it.
'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 Thanatos
Redshirt
Posts: 14
Joined: 2016-03-31 12:49am

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Darth Thanatos » 2016-06-22 05:02pm

DarthPooky wrote:So there there are two idiotic Trekkie arguments that I suspect some dye hard Trekkies think but I haven't really seen argued on this forum or others. They more or less sound like this.

• Land armies in Star Trek are obsolete because Phasers are so super duper more powerful than boasters that one guy with a hand Phaser can take out hundreds of storm troopers and tanks and vehicles and walkers.

• Star Wars needs armies because there ships can't bombard planets or at least can't shoot at planets accurately. Ships in Star Trek can easily and accurately just wipe out entire armies and there for star fleet doesn't need land armies.

What I'm asking is has anyone hear has herd of people use these arguments on any forums and if so could anyone point me to them were the person or persons arguing them gets the imperial smack down so you know to get a good chuckle out of there stupidity.


Congratulations. You made me laugh.
"Love does not lead to the Dark Side. Passion can lead to rage and fear, and can be controlled. But passion is not the same thing as love. Controlling your passions while being in love... that's what they should teach you to beware. But love itself will save you, not condemn you." - Jolee Bindo, on the subject of the Jedi forbidding love.

If you want to really make a Hobbit mad at you, quote Anna from Frozen and tell them foot size doesn't matter.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10433
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby Lord Revan » 2016-06-22 05:11pm

Batman wrote:Depends on what you're trying to do. Occupation/conquest/liberation? Yeah, no can do. If all you're going for is 'obliteration' aerial/orbital bombardment works just fine provided you've got enough of it.

Problem is that most debaters are kind of stuck in a RTS mentality where as long as you kill all the enemies you get the "zone" intact with all the benefits that come with it, so they're unable to realize that sometimes nuking the site from orbit isn't the best option or even a viable one.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Re: Have Trekkies used these arguments?

Postby DarthPooky » 2016-06-24 01:30am

The Omega Glory wrote:
SPOCK: Captain Tracey's reserve belt packs. Empty. Found among the remains of several hundred Yang bodies.


Spock is not known for his exaggeration. I think it likely the writers imagined something akin to the battle of Rorke's Drift, as the film Zulu was then-recent.


Conceded I totally forgot that point with Spock.

Pretty explicit that Tracey was in among them. Most likely they were spearmen for the most part, and Tracey was using them on the 'fanblade' automatic setting that TOS phasers had, IE using them as automatic weapons.


Sure I can see that but as was pointed out already Tracy was fighting hordes of charging primitives. I don't why we should assume the same effectiveness with imperial infantry who would probably use Tactics to help combat automatic weapons in which they've no doubt have encountered and possess like the E web. Also there's the gear that storm troopers have like armour grenades heads up Displays in there helmets and so on. Now I'm not saying that a Phaser is not a good weapon. I just find it ludicrous when Trekkies and even writers say that Phasers are so uber powerful that one guy can take out entire army's with ease when it is essentially just a more powerful hand gun.

Star Trek is actually just as good at planetary bombardment. In some respects it is better. If Vader had possessed a klingon Bird of Prey or a Defiant class in his fleet, he could have taken the battle of Hoth without ever needing to set foot on the planet, though he might have killed Luke. Bypassing the shield. Would you like me to explain?


Wait what? Using that logic Vaider could have sent tie bombers the he didn't and why it wouldn't work with birds of pray ( besides not killing luke ) is because the Hoth shield is probably like the Gungan one and requires physical contact with the ground. Wich is one of the reasons that they used walkers.

Sensor jamming is irrelevant in this scenario as Vader already had reports from a probe on the ground detailing aspects of the target. They weren't exactly moving those generators. It's relevant if you want to hit moving targets, but if you're not capable of dialling in a known location on a planet to a computer, you're not capable of freakin' space travel, Lunokhod 1 could hit a known target on a planetary surface; people rely on jamming to excuse a lot of faults, but once they know a location on a planet, jamming can't stop them knowing that location.


I don't mean sensor jamming on Hoth but as another you can hinder orbital strikes since it would probably in crease the risk of collateral damage and civilian casualties.

As for less inclined, let's remember we've actually seen a starfleet captain, on his own initiative, bomb a planet to drive out the population, and relieve no censure for it from Starfleet. We've seen no such thing in canonical star wars, and even in the Legends, it requires higher authority in the Empire to order a world-ending bombardment than a captain possesses; two out of the four main Starfleet captains have given, in earnest, the order to destroy planets. No canonical personage below the rank of Grand Moff has given such an order in Star Wars.


Ok conceded. I guess that's what you get for messing with the Sisko am I right :).


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests