Moderator: Vympel
She turned you down, so I really doubt you'll be doing anything at night but sleeping.Lord Pounder wrote:Last week I attempted to ask out a model. She told me to fuck off an laughted at me. Still the fact I attempted to pul a person way hotter than me is staggering. Fuck, this could go on all night.
Yes, though I don't see why that is relevant. So can I look forward to you actually rebutting my point?Did you have a dream?Oh what the hell, I'm bored too.
Yeah, because there's tons of examples of ISDs blowing shielded planets to smithereens. Oh wait.
Thus your statement that they were killed by fighters is a blatant lie.We see ships far in the back ground. It's hard to tell what is hitting them.Your judgments seem to have no relation to what we saw in the movies. All of the SDs we saw lost in action where taken out by fighters.
Actually, NONE of them were. The ONLY SDs we saw lost in action were the ones at the Battle of Endor and all of them were killed by capship fire except Executor, which was killed by crashing into the Death Star.
Doing negligible damage.We see close ups of fighters shooting up the Executor.
No we didn't. We saw a fighter bow up one of the domes atop the bridge. Even if it WERE a shield generator (which we know it isn't) for the fighter to be able to do that means the shield is already down ANYWAY.We first saw a fighter blow up the shield generator.Yeah, a fighter crashing into the UNSHIELDED (thanks to bombardment from a number of enemy capships) bridge of an SD totally translates into them having weak shields.That shows they have weak shields, and weak anti- fighter defences.
I very much doubt he bothered to reply to you but even if that is true, given the fact that Wars fighters can carry torpedoes that can threaten WARS capships, he's RIGHT.He stated that in an E-Mail to me.I must have missed the part where he did that. If we're talking about the main site, Mike even attributed the E-nil more firepower than an X-Wing.If you assume an X wing has more fire power then the Enterprise D, your just being silly.
To somebody else. This is relevant to you replying to me why,exactly?I addressed this in another E-Mail.I like how you elaborate on that. Oh wait, you don't. Without a point of reference it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell how fast something is moving in empty space.SDs are shown moving like bricks, in normal space.
Of the WHAT seen onscreen? And why SHOULD the planet in the background change relative position?Planets in the back ground don't change relative position in the time frame of the seen on screen.
That's funny, cause there's NOTHING in all of the movies saying that what comes out of the engines (oh, and incidentally, we never see anything coming out of the engines except light to begin with) is actually plasma. And even if it were that doesn't make them fusion engines smartypants.The plasma coming out of the exhausts gave me a clue.SW ships use fusion drive in normal space,
Hypermatter was thought up by a fan, and embraced by Fanboys, because it makes it sound more advanced.[/quote]As we know Wars ships are powered by hypermatter reactors this is relevant why, exactly?Power is fusion, that's it. Power plant output is way below what a Matter/Anti-matter reactor could put out.
EFFICIENT, maybe. NOT powerful.If I got 15 billion tons of reactant and you got three grams it doesn't matter that my reactor is only half as efficient as yours. And blatant lie to boot as you don't know SHIT about the efficiency of hypermatter reactors. Or Waro Cores, for that matter.Funny, but dumb. By it's nature matter/antimatter is many times more efficient.Which are also several million times less powerful.They have big reactors, to make up some of the difference vs the more compact power plants on STs ships.
DO tell me how efficient a hypermatter reactor is, especially as it can still put out several million times more energy than a Warp Core can.But they need more power for movement of their huge mass, and less efficient power systems.
It has been quantified quite accurately on several occasions, most notably Mike's DS1 calculations and the ICS's. That you don't LIKE the results of those calculations is not my problem. Hypermatter reactors are canon, fuckface. Deal with it.Since a hypermatter reactor is a fanboy invention it has no meaning, and so is a nonquantifiable nonsense number.
I'm still waiting for actual evidence.It's a guy thing. I understand. SW fanboys are obsessed with it. It come up in every discussion.Because-you say so.Most SW fans are fixed on size.
Thanks for admitting that housing the MEN does NOT. And DO tell me the number and size of the landing craft and walkers that are housed on your average ISD.Silly fanboy. 10,000 troops need all kinds of support, including landing craft, for the men, and the Imperial Walkers.No it doesn't. On a ship the size of an ISD housing 10,000 troops is an utter and complete nonproblem.A SD is so big for a few reasons. First they can carry 10,000 ground troops, that takes up a lot of internal volume.
Neither do SDs. The hangar bays are open to space.Carriers use deck storage, and don't need airlocks.Modern day carriers carry 100 aircraft noticeably larger than TIEs and are a fraction of an ISD's size.Second they carry a fighter group of 72.
Your evidence that SDs do is?They also don't carry large transports,
Yes they do. They're called C-3 Greyhounds.and shuttles.
Yep.Every thing seems so simple to people who know nothing about real ships.
And carries a whopping 6,000 people while having about a twentieth or less of the volume of an ISD AND having a lot of its volume dedicated to its air wing while the ISD does NOT. Yeah, that's a fair comparison.Again it seems you know little about real ships. A large ship can have a small usable internal volume. A 100,000 ton aircraft carrier is a very cramped ship.For something that size, actually no they don't.Third they have a huge crew.
So what pray tell do YOU think are blast effects? You obviously don't use the definition the rest of humanity does.Yes that is what I said, heat effects.Yeah. Flash vaporizing lots of target matter will totally not result in blast effects. And that's leaving alone the superheated air along the way of the discharge in an atmospheric attack.Weapons in SW are stated to be lasers, (Ion cannon aside) though they don't look or act that way, a lot of the time. Laser energy just burns it's target, no blast effects
No it isn't if they're powerful enough and since Wars TLs CANNOT be lasers that is relevant to begin with why again?Poor weapons for bombardments from space.
Bwahahah. Laser have a hard time in an atmosphere. Sorry but it's true.
IOW, you admit they cannot be lasers. When it does something that a laser CAN'T, that means it ain't a laser.I didn't say they were not lasers, I said they don't seem to act like lasers all the time. It could be just the choice of effects.As turbolasers cannot possibly be lasers this is relevant why?Lasers can be countered in several ways.
Not really. That would require me to read through your drivel AGAIN.I see your an English major. Want to critic my spelling?As supported by-you saying so. Oh, and wavelength frequency is a redundant phrase.wide band adjustable shields would find it easy to jam their wavelength frequency.
Borg cutting laser. You were saying?The only time they encounter laser equipped ships they said they could shoot them till their lasers run dry and not hurt the Enterprise.Which is why the Big E is never in any trouble at all from lasers throughout all of TNG. Oh wait.ST ships do this in most combat stories, lasers are in a low wavelength, by the nature of what a laser is. For them it's a low tech weapon, easily countered.
Not that I see what wavelength has got to do with it.
You gotta be fucking kidding me.The puff.As evidenced by what, exactly?Phasers & Disrupters seem to convey a shock wave that shatters matter at an atomic level.
Essentially, yes it is. I'm still waiting for your explanation.When they disintegrate an object do you see any thing left? may be you think it's magic?Somehow. Your evidence they do so by shattering matter at the atomic level (whatever THAT means) is...?They make things go puff.
Which doesn't say beans about the yield I'm afraid.When the blast effect envelops a Borg Cube, or damages more then one ship at a time.regardless of the fact that they apparently never ARE,Photon torpedoes can be set at a multi megaton range,
Which doesn't require them to be unidirectional.and the blast effects can be set unidirectional.When we see them hit part of a ship.
Which doesn't require them to be unidirectional.When they don't kill people on the ground 50 feet from the point of impact.
Except that never actually happens.That is all the force directed at one point, in one direction.As evidenced by?
Or maybe their yield can be dialed down far enough for that not to happen.That's why they do more damage then phasers, and don't always spread out in a huge blast.
You have no doubt done extensive calculations on that and are intimately familiar with the makeup of the Death Star surface's material. Because if you AREN'T, you're talking out of your arse. Oh, and the X-Wing LASER BLASTS were already the equivalent of a small nuke, as laid out by Mike who unlike you DID run the numbers and used a very conservative estimate on DS armour durability.If you think they were, you have no idea what a nuke blast is like.A small nuke would have blown a hole 100 meters deep into the DS.The fact that they usually DO spread out in a huge blast notwithstanding.Because-you say so.Your guess that "Proton Torps" are nukes I think is wrong. In ANH the PTs that "pecked the surface" were not nuke blasts.
It's generally considered polite to quote the part you're responding to.Actually he argued the warhead didn't arm.Actually Mike does. You're the one who doesn't.
Unlike you I actually know what an X-ray laser is. If you're talking about a bomb-pumped laser, fucking go ahead and say so.Look up the X-Ray laser Fanboy.Which is a completely made-up term likely as not.They may have been a conventional blast pumped energy pulse weapon, that would shatter the magnetic containment field in a fusion reactor.
You guys think making big machines represents a higher level of science then controlling matter and energy, or understanding time travel.[/quote]THAT much is true at least.In terms of speed, fire power and shielding there is just no contest.True again. As above, Trek loses by a landslide.Over all science is all so no contest.
There's only one simpleton here. Two words:World Devastators.Why? You guys have to be simpletons not to understand what the level of complexity would have to be to make transporters, Replicators or the Genesis device work.
Not much, but obviously more than you do.I don't think you even know were those terms come from, or what they mean. Do you know any thing about strategy?He did. You obviously don't.In terms of numbers SWs has a lead. The Empire is much bigger then the Federation, with many more planets. The size of the fleet is more debatable. If most SWs fan argue the fleet at Endor was less then 1% of the fleet, then the emperor never understood the principles of concentration of force, or economy of force.
Since he essentially controlled 100% of the Galaxy where pray tell would he LOOK for allies (which he did regardless, BTW) and why would he need them to begin with?or the history of real wars? Palpatine's political strategy in the 3 prequel movies was very good. His strategy in the original movies was awful. He was doomed to defeat. His strategy brought him no allies,
As evidenced by-you saying so.and rallied more and more peoples against him. He could never win a peace.
Funny, I would've sworn THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.The Emperor can't trust his own people, so he can't arm them, or let them mobilize for war, because they will make war on him.
Regardless of the fact that that's exactly what happened.The idea that he has all these races building fleets and armies would be suicide for him.
Happily ignoring what actually happened.His forces would be spending most of their time disarming people, and limiting arms production.
2 weeks to travel slightly over 3 lightyears in ENT. You were saying?They never say thatExcept that short time means 'hours' for Wars as opposed to 'days' for Trek, and that's with Trek's far lower distances between systems.Both sort of just say they get from system to system in a short time, that they just gloss over.
As evidenced by-you saying so. Not that I see what bearing that has on starship speeds.it's what you think it is. ROTS took about 9 months.
Which, again, has what exactly got to do with stardrive speeds?Other then Padmay's pregnancy you would think it all happened in a few weeks. Most of the time people are traveling from planet to planet.
YES I DO GOAT RAPIST. Unlike you, I'm actually able to draw conclusions from the evidence available, and the evidence availave says Wars stardrive sppeds are in the 7 figure c range.You don't know that.100,000 ly or thereabouts in less than 8 hours. Your point being?In Voyager they say they can go about 1,000 LYs a year. However the Enterprise D was said to be able to cross 7000 light years in less than 3 years.
ST fighters are more like attack shuttles. They have matter/antimatter power[/quote]Which is why the Feds totally didn't use any in the Dominion war.As far as fighters are concerned, they don't really exist among advanced races in ST because they are ineffective against shielded ships.
And UNLIKE in Trek, in Wars fighters generally ARE ineffective against shielded capships.
which is useless in a combat situation except for running away and STILL several orders of magnitude slower than hyperdrive, which Wars fighters HAVE,warp drive
which are, while admittedly more flexible, a lot less powerful than SW lasers, leave alone turbolasers,phasers
which Wars fighters have, and unsurprisingly far more powerful onesshields
The word you're looking for is 'delusion'. Most B5 powers would be eaten alive by the Trek federation and could safely be IGNORED by Wars.A hard truth.You gotta be fucking kidding me.The bottom line is fine to like one franchise more than the other but not let "fanboyism" completely cloud your analysis. I liked Babylon 5 more than ST but it's technology is more on the SWs level.
That's right. Don't bother to compare relative firepower or armour resilience or take into account the fact that one party has PT firepower and shielding while the other doesn't.Heavy laser cut ships open, unlike turbo lasers.
'Weak' in this context meaning 'can ignore all of Starfleet attacking it until running out of fuel' for a Corellian Corvette. And that's WITHOUT the Corvette firing back.SW has weak shields so that gives them some advantages.
When the Feds, who are outgunned by the Empire by about a gazillion to one, might actually stand up to the Minbari,The Mibari would tear a new asshole in the empire. greater ship killing power,
Because-you say so when that jamming shouldn't have worked PERIOD at the point-blank ranges some of those battles occured (hint-if I can see it, I can target it),jammers so the empire couldn't target them.
Again, as evidenced by-you saying so. Acceleration and firepower numbers on the White Stars?A force of whitestars would run circles around a force of SDs and cut them up.
As evidenced by what, exactly? Especially given that a single MTL battery on an Acclamator has 400 times that firepower even ignoring that 99+ % of that fusion bomb's yield will be wasted on empty space?One 500 megaton bomb would take out a DS.
These days, a file is by definition a digital thing transmittable through cyberspace. They DO send you a copy of the actual file.Bubble Boy wrote:And when someone says they are sending me "the file" over the phone, you don't automatically assume he has a transporter on hand because he must be sending the physical copy over.Darth Servo wrote:Whats wrong with the idea. Qui Gon didn't say he was sending readings. He said he was sending the blood sample.Bubble Boy wrote: Servo, I seriously hope you were joking here?
It's one thing for Qui Gon's hand held device to extract blood and send/store readings for a starship analysing computer...quite another to jump to a transporter arguement.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking Trek, or liking it more than Star Wars. People who enjoy the series don't need to have their 'head sorted out'.Revy wrote:To think that I used to like Trek more than Wars. Thank christ I found this place and got my head sorted out. Why, oh why, doesnt the same happen to other Trek fanatics?
I think my brain just melted. So what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?Darth Wong wrote:My favourite Borg wanker was the guy who said that the Borg can adapt to anything, but Species 8472 "adapted to the adaptation". I'm not making that up. Trekkies can say the damndest things.
some of the best fanfics on this site involve both, you just have to be rational in your expetations of what is depicted in either show.Bubble Boy wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking Trek, or liking it more than Star Wars. People who enjoy the series don't need to have their 'head sorted out'.Revy wrote:To think that I used to like Trek more than Wars. Thank christ I found this place and got my head sorted out. Why, oh why, doesnt the same happen to other Trek fanatics?
I'll post my response later. I have other stuff to take care of at the moment.We can have fun laughing at each other. I thought most of what was on the site was silly fanboy stuff.Me wrote:I'd just like to say we are getting a great laugh from the email you sent to Mike Wong of StarDestroyer.net
If your mind is closed, and you just call a counter argument hatemail, it say's more about you then the sender.http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=124869
Really, the vast majority of your "arguments" were shot down years ago and are already on Mike's hatemail page.
Glassing a planet would be just has effective as a terror tactic. By any measure the DS was a waste of resources. It seems the Emperor wanted control, and so a small number of powerful units are easier to control. In ANH Tarken talked about "Fear keeping the local systems in line. Fear of this Station." Han Solo told us the whole Imperial Fleet couldn't destroy a planet, a 1,000 ships. Then his thought was cut off. From that you can draw 2 things. First the empire has fewer then 1,000 ships. Second that no one had ever blown up a planet before. It would have been much better to build 100 ISDs and patrol more of the Empire.http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/
But since I have nothing better to do at the moment...
I see you are utterly clueless about the energy difference between glassing a planet and making it blow up like a bomb. You are similarly ignorant of this thing in SW called "planetary shields" that can stymie bombardment from a few ISDs but not from the Death Star.If SDs were as powerful as you say, you would never have had to build the Death Star.
We saw them take out shield generators and then cut up the surface. One takes out the bridge by crashing into it, after going out of control. The SSD then goes out of control and crashed into the DS. If small fighter were useless no one would use them. May be you think they only have them to take out DSs. I have no doubt capital ships can take each other out, that's what there built for. The point your missing is that turbo lasers on big and smaller capital ships put out about the same fire power. The difference is the number of guns they carry. Turbo lasers are used to shoot at fighters and capital ships, to take out a capital ship they have to score hundreds of hits. The concept in SWs reminds me of a WWII ship type called an Anti Aircraft Cruiser. They were basic light cruisers but instead of 6" main guns for surface actions they had 5" duel purpose guns. They were very useful ships for screening task forces, and when forced into surface actions made up for the lightness of their shells with a high rate of fire, at least twice as fast as 6" guns. We have never seen big ships fire can opener guns, That is a powerful single blast that does heavy damage to another ship, or even pierce the hull. Unlike the big lasers in Babylon 5, and the phasers in ST which are can openers.Wrong. All we ever saw the fighters do is blow up small targets on the surface. Without cap ship support, the fighters would have been useless. In fact, when Admiral Ackbar gives his order to "concentrate all fire on the super Star Destroyer" we see a Mon Calamari Cruiser blow up an ISD with its heavy turbolasers.Your judgments seem to have no relation to what we saw in the movies. All of the SDs we saw lost in action where taken out by fighters. That shows they have weak shields, and weak anti- fighter defenses.
Very funny. Pegasus was the phase cloaked ship that got stuck in an asteroid? In that episode the Enterprise didn't want to fire in side the asteroid for fear it would collapse around them. In the TOS "Paradise Syndrome the Enterprise tries to split an asteroid half the size of the moon in half. Given they are firing phasers into a deep rift, they were trying to cut though about 1,000 miles of rock, nickel, and Iron. Do you think an X-Wing can do that? Granted they failed, because their engines were already overloaded, but they thought they had a fair chance to do it. The E-Refit had 50% more phaser power, the D and E seem to have twice that. I would have no dout the E or D, or even A could do it. If you think an X-Wing could do that your just delusional.Its not an assumption. Its a calculation based on the fact that Slave-1 caused more destruction in AOTC than the E-D could do in Pegasus with "most" of its photon torpedoes.If you assume an X wing has more fire power then the Enterprise D, your just being silly.
You do realize Newton's laws still hold sway? They don't have to burn engines to keep moving. They show no indication they can race up to a planet, or other target, Fighters and light craft look like they can. They have better acceleration deceleration, their much faster, and unlike SDs they can maneuver.You do realize that in the middle of a battle, you want to divert power to weapons and shields, rather than engines, right?SDs are shown moving like bricks, in normal space.
Good observation, you can see the shuttle moving by seeing the Earth pass below. We have seen SDs with planets behind them, and we don't see the relative position change. That indicates their speed is not high enough to see a change with in a few moments. They may be 10 times faster then the shuttle, but not much more. May be a few hundred KPS. ST ships have been shown to move and maneuver at more the half light speed. SWs fighters may not be that fast.Hey, ever watched footage of the space shuttle in orbit? It looks like a brick in space too but its really moving at about several THOUSAND miles per hour.
You mean 1/4 of Yavin. If Yavin is about Jupiter's size they only need to be moving 10 times or less the Shuttle's speed. The Shuttle's passes 1/4 around the Earth in about 20 mins.The Death Star was able to travel half-way around the gas giant Yavin in half an hour. ISD's were able to travel around Endor in seconds. You don't even try to calculate the acceleration and velocity needed for such an event.
That's the only kind there is. Matter fusion or what ever your calling it was dreamed up by a fan, and accepted by fanboys, because they couldn't accept the limits of fusion drive. They have to ignore the obvious to make it sound more advanced. We know what fusion is. Unfortunately we still can't make it work.They never said it was NUCLEAR fusion.SW ships use fusion drive in normal space
Wrong again, ST ships are much faster. More overwhelmingly they can attack ships in normal space, at warp speed. SWs would have no defense, they wouldn't even see the attack coming.In other words, STL is IDENTICAL according to you, contradicting your claim of Trek superiority.in trek terms pure impulse.
Wrong again, they do use main power in normal space. Your thinking main power is only used for warp drive.Which is used for their WARP drive, not their sub-light maneuvering which is what you were talking about in SW. Compare apples to apples. How does matter-antimatter compare with hypermatter used in SW?Power plant output is way below what a Matter/Anti-matter reactor could put out.
I guess you don't know much about designing real ships? Every thing is a design compromise. A ship that is 1/3 warship, 1/3 carrier, and 1/3 attack transport, is not as good at any of it's jobs as a purpose built ship. In the 1970s the Soviets built highbred carrier's with missile cruiser layouts. The result was a cruiser with limited aviation ability, on a massive 40,000 ton hull. The USN would never build something like that, much better to have a real carrier.You make it sound like a bad thing to have an actual ground army.Most SW fans are fixed on size. A SD is so big for a few reasons. First they can carry 10,000 ground troops, that takes up a lot of internal volume. Second they carry a fighter group of 72.
True Fed ships have oscine crew quarters. We have never seen the quarters on Imperial ships, I would guess there much more Spartan. However Crew size on a SD is in the thousands, and they all need space, food, life support, water, and a whole range of services. crews 10-20 bigger means a lot of resources, and more mass to the ship, then just huge crew quarters.Second, how does this compare to Federation ships which waste all that space on things like luxurious crew quarters or DOLPHIN TANKS (TNG Perfect Mate)
Not sure what you mean? are they lasers? They say they are, but some time they seem more like particle streams. Could be just the way the effects look. I think they call them torpedoes because of the naval reference. Since your so in the know what do you think they are?Ah, so we should ignore the physical characteristics and fixate on the name. Got it. So photon TORPEDOES have a propeller to drive them through water, right? Because they're called "torpedoes" and we're ignoring the actual properties.Weapons in SW are stated to be lasers though they don't look or act that way, a lot of the time.
Wow, you have no idea what the corona of a star is like. An energy blast is a focused effect on a small area, for a short period of time. Being close to a star is being hit with massive heat, and radiation over the whole surface of your ship, and or shields, every instant your there. It's like shooting you with a water pistol of boiling water, or dropping you into a pool of water at 180F for 5min. The first will burn you, the second will kill you.Is that why the ship is in grave danger every time they get too close to a star?For them [lasers are] a low tech weapon, easily countered.
You are funny. I'm talking about on the atomic level, you don't see that with the naked eye.They make things disappear into thin air. No shock wave is EVER observed from the magic phaser disappearing act.Phasers & Disrupters seem to convey a shock wave that shatters matter at an atomic level. They make things go puff.
We have clearly seen them used for point strikes. ST III, V, and in most combats in TNG on. A max yield blast would cover a whole ship. We have rarely seen them do that. In most torp hits you see them hitting a part of a ship, and doing local damage. We know a PT has more penetrating power then a Nuke, but don't cause a massive blast effect except when set to max yield. When they do the blast is huge, covering most of a Borg Cube, and being a danger to near by ships. Voyager used 2 Tricolbalt warheads that almost enveloped the Caretakers Array, destroying it in seconds. The Array was about 10 miles across. A dozen such weapons would destroy the DS. You don't have to destroy the whole mass of the station. You use 2 to take out the planet killer weapon, then take out a chunk 10 miles deep, then fire the others down the hole, one at a time. 6 of them could blow though 60 miles too the core, then boom.Bullcrap. They repeatedly talk about close proximity torpedo explosions being a threat to the firing ship (TNG Q-who, VOY The Swarm)Photon torpedoes can be set at a multi megaton range, and the blast effects can be set unidirectional.
Because it blow up. Nuff said.The only Proton Torpedo explosion seen in ANH was Red Leader's impacting next to the exhaust port. Explain to me why we should assume the warhead had armed itself at that point when it was dozens of miles from its intended target--the Death Star reactor.Your guess that "Proton Torps" are nukes I think is wrong. In ANH the PTs that "pecked the surface" were not nuke blasts.
Childish.A light Saber is device, a transporter, or replacator is not just a device. They represent a technology that would revolutionize the whole culture. It's like going from a steam engine, to a nuclear reactor, and saying it's just a another way to generate heat.Yet the list of things they can't replicate are legion. Hardly the universal control of matter you're wanking about.The federation transporter & replicator tech means they understand & and can control the nature of matter, up to a planetary scale.
This is really just the old "Trek has a couple devices that SW doesn't so Trek must be superior across the board" idiocy. I could make the same argument in reverse--SW has light sabers, Trek does not.
You are a athlete. What a leap.Oh, and if SW doesn't have transporters, how did Qui-gon Jinn get Anakin's blood sample from Mos Espa back to Amidala's ship in TPM?
You guys missed the whole point. Not only did it make a planet, did you forget the star it made? There was no star there before, just gas. If you think building the DS was a greater technical feat, it shows your just fixated on destruction. Changing the nature of matter on that scale is a feat magnitudes above scaling up a laser. Creating lifeforms by design, and a whole ecosystem for them is staggering. The level of complexity is off the chart. Your guys are being obtuse, in other words block heads not to understand what would be involved in such a feat, and what it would mean.Collapsing a nebula into a planetary mass is a net NEGATIVE energy event. Hardly staggering at all.Genesis may have failed, and been canceled, but the fact they could even attempt such a project is staggering.
100 SD would be just as easy to hide as the 30 that were there. No one in SWs has long range sensors, that can look into other systems. To find them you have to be on top of them. Your creating a theory to fit your conclusion that the Empire could have had many more ships, but chose not to bring them. The trap was not very effective. First off the Rebel ships could have just jumped away, after the first ship was taken out, by the DS. Second the fleet was inadequate for the job. even with the DS in support the fleet was beaten in a stand up fight. I stand by my conclusion the Emperor was a poor strategist.No, it means a huge fleet is harder to HIDE. You were aware that Endor was a TRAP, right? That the Emperor wanted to maintain the illusion that the Death Star was unprotected until the very last moment, right, when the Rebels would be next to the Death Star and be extremely difficult to escape.If most SWs fan argue the fleet at Endor was less then 1% of the fleet, then the emperor never understood the principles of concentration of force, or economy of force.
The parts were made by replicators. What you see are the parts being put together in the ship yard.Yet every time we see a place like Utopia Planitia, ships are being built the old fashioned way--putting it together, not being replicated.Industrial replicators, and such.
Again silly. Every word or causal reference can't be taken as a hard fact. If the line was They could be anywhere by now", would you take that to mean they could by 5 galaxies away? The empire does not cover a large Galaxy like the Milky Way. The Empire has tens of thousands of systems. The whole galaxy would have hundreds of billions of systems. The events of ROTS, took about 9 months. That indicates a lot of time spent moving around the galaxy. In ST V the Enterprise A reached the center of the galaxy in a few days. Was it really the center of the galaxy? Did it only take a few days? Don't sweat the details, it's not key to the story, so the writer didn't make a point of it.Wrong. In SW they repeatedly talk about crossing the entire galaxy in short order. Han had claimed he'd done it personally and Imperial officers in TESB stated that the Falcon could have done it by the time Vader had choked Captain Needa.In terms of FTL in both universe's there is no real measure of time and space. Both sort of just say they get from system to system in a short time, that they just gloss over.
I'm very capable of telling the difference. My point went over your head. The times and speeds are abstract, and very hard to judge.I see you are incapable of telling the difference between sustainable velocity cut off from your supply base for decades and burst velocity over a much shorter period of time and much larger reserves.In Voyager they say they can go about 1,000 LYs a year. However the Enterprise D was said to be able to cross 7000 light years in less than 3 years.
The fighters in ST are bigger then SW. They are more the size of shuttles. The analogy is more like PT boats then WWII fighter planes.So those Peregrine fighters I saw in DS9 were a figment of my imagination, right? Those Scorpion ships in Nemesis were a hallucination. Then again, Nemesis was so bad, its not inconceivable it induced temporary insanity.As far as fighters are concerned, they don't really exist among advanced races in ST because they are ineffective against shielded ships.
I see you ignored my points about shields vs lasers. I guess you had no answer to that on the "Hate Mail list".
As for planetary shields, SW fans came up with them based on a few fames in the Alderan destruction seen, a crescent of light from the point were the beam hits. In the remastered digital version, the crescent effect is gone. Did the shield disappear? No, it was never there.
Thanks for the laughs. I hope this gives you a few. Your probably some nice young guys. Your just caught up in rampant fanboyism.
Take care. Bob
Did you miss the whole thing about "planetary shields"?Glassing a planet would be just has effective as a terror tactic. By any measure the DS was a waste of resources.
Instead of, you know, a million worlds and all the attendant fleets that would require to control.It seems the Emperor wanted control, and so a small number of powerful units are easier to control.
Yeah, let's take an off-hand comment by a man who is at that moment dodging asteroids and extrapolate the size of the entire Imperial Fleet from it.In ANH Tarken talked about "Fear keeping the local systems in line. Fear of this Station." Han Solo told us the whole Imperial Fleet couldn't destroy a planet, a 1,000 ships.
Yet the capacity to build hundreds of thousands at the drop of a hat and a million worlds to control. Logic, numb-nuts, it is useful to have.First the empire has fewer then 1,000 ships.
No. It mean that Han Solo had never seen them destroy a planet before. Major difference.Second that no one had ever blown up a planet before.
Those were sensor domes, jackass.We saw them take out shield generators and then cut up the surface.
No, you moron, this was when they were outside the asteroid and were suggesting destroying the entire 5km asteroid with photon torpedoes to destroy the ship. Riker specifically says it would take most of their torpedoes to destroy it.Very funny. Pegasus was the phase cloaked ship that got stuck in an asteroid? In that episode the Enterprise didn't want to fire in side the asteroid for fear it would collapse around them.
Its late, so maybe I'm having trouble understanding what the hell his point is here. Is he saying that the ST ships are more maneuverable? Isn't that kind of terribly irrelevent, when turbolasers can hit frantically dodging frighters a twentieth the size of the Enterprise with ease?They show no indication they can race up to a planet, or other target, Fighters and light craft look like they can. They have better acceleration deceleration, their much faster, and unlike SDs they can maneuver.
Goddammit, the Imperial fleet at Endor circled around the entire planet in a matter of minutes - so fast the Rebels didn't even notice them moving until they were already in position to trap them!Good observation, you can see the shuttle moving by seeing the Earth pass below. We have seen SDs with planets behind them, and we don't see the relative position change. That indicates their speed is not high enough to see a change with in a few moments.
Note here that he completely ignores the ISDs circling Endor, in the vain hope that by spouting stats on the Space Shuttle that we'll be too distracted and thus ignore the glaring flaw in his analysis.You mean 1/4 of Yavin. If Yavin is about Jupiter's size they only need to be moving 10 times or less the Shuttle's speed. The Shuttle's passes 1/4 around the Earth in about 20 mins.
yeah, which is why hypermatter reactors are repeatedly mentioned in the ICS, the Guide of to Vehicles and Vessels.....Matter fusion or what ever your calling it was dreamed up by a fan, and accepted by fanboys, because they couldn't accept the limits of fusion drive. They have to ignore the obvious to make it sound more advanced.
Wank, wank, wank. Examples of this happening, because Gene Roddenberry himself said this was physically impossible due to the inverse square law.More overwhelmingly they can attack ships in normal space, at warp speed. SWs would have no defense, they wouldn't even see the attack coming.
Thank you, Bob, for proving you can't wrap your head around the concept that just because something is named in a particular way, it doesn't necessarily mean it adheres to that name.Not sure what you mean? are they lasers? They say they are, but some time they seem more like particle streams. Could be just the way the effects look. I think they call them torpedoes because of the naval reference. Since your so in the know what do you think they are?
Thanks for proving you don't understand concentration of force, numbnuts.Wow, you have no idea what the corona of a star is like. An energy blast is a focused effect on a small area, for a short period of time. Being close to a star is being hit with massive heat, and radiation over the whole surface of your ship, and or shields, every instant your there. It's like shooting you with a water pistol of boiling water, or dropping you into a pool of water at 180F for 5min. The first will burn you, the second will kill you.
In other words, you're pulling it out of your ass.I'm talking about on the atomic level, you don't see that with the naked eye.
This proves that Bob can't distinguish between penetrating shots that destroy internal reactors and the actual explosions of the warheads detonating.We have clearly seen them used for point strikes. ST III, V, and in most combats in TNG on. A max yield blast would cover a whole ship. We have rarely seen them do that. In most torp hits you see them hitting a part of a ship, and doing local damage. We know a PT has more penetrating power then a Nuke, but don't cause a massive blast effect except when set to max yield. When they do the blast is huge, covering most of a Borg Cube, and being a danger to near by ships. Voyager used 2 Tricolbalt warheads that almost enveloped the Caretakers Array, destroying it in seconds. The Array was about 10 miles across. A dozen such weapons would destroy the DS. You don't have to destroy the whole mass of the station. You use 2 to take out the planet killer weapon, then take out a chunk 10 miles deep, then fire the others down the hole, one at a time. 6 of them could blow though 60 miles too the core, then boom.
Thus proving Bob doesn't understand that warheads don't blow up just because they hit something, and must be armed before detonating.Because it blow up. Nuff said.
Childish.A light Saber is device, a transporter, or replacator is not just a device.
Yeah, it does a great job revolutionizing the entire culture, eliminating scarcity and....oh, wait.represent a technology that would revolutionize the whole culture. It's like going from a steam engine, to a nuclear reactor, and saying it's just a another way to generate heat.
And they never did it again. They never used it again. The project was slated as a failure. There is never any other attempt made, militarily or economically, to match the scale of that project. When the Dominion invaded, the Federation never attempted to make use of this spectacular technology or capability in a military fashion to save themselves.You guys missed the whole point. Not only did it make a planet, did you forget the star it made? There was no star there before, just gas. If you think building the DS was a greater technical feat, it shows your just fixated on destruction. Changing the nature of matter on that scale is a feat magnitudes above scaling up a laser. Creating lifeforms by design, and a whole ecosystem for them is staggering. The level of complexity is off the chart. Your guys are being obtuse, in other words block heads not to understand what would be involved in such a feat, and what it would mean.
Read before you open your stupidhole again.100 SD would be just as easy to hide as the 30 that were there. No one in SWs has long range sensors, that can look into other systems. To find them you have to be on top of them.
Yeah, which is why they did, because the Empire didn't have enough ships to stop them from doing that.Your creating a theory to fit your conclusion that the Empire could have had many more ships, but chose not to bring them. The trap was not very effective. First off the Rebel ships could have just jumped away, after the first ship was taken out, by the DS.
The Emperor's death ended his Battle Meditation and resulted in a major loss of cohesion. that, followed by the flagship being destroyed AND the Death Star's annihilation is what we call a "morale blow."Second the fleet was inadequate for the job. even with the DS in support the fleet was beaten in a stand up fight.
Proof the parts are being made by replicators.The parts were made by replicators. What you see are the parts being put together in the ship yard.
Yet you take Han Solo's off-hand mention as to the thousand ships being hard fact as to the Empire's ship numbers.....Again silly. Every word or causal reference can't be taken as a hard fact.
The exact line was "If the Millenium Falcon went to hyperdrive, they'd be on the other side of the galaxy by now."If the line was They could be anywhere by now", would you take that to mean they could by 5 galaxies away?
Millions, actually.The empire does not cover a large Galaxy like the Milky Way. The Empire has tens of thousands of systems.
Proof and relavence.The events of ROTS, took about 9 months.
You're handwaving away the fact that they weren't in the center of the damned galaxy in the first place. Someone remember Mike's very specific quote to deal with that kind of nonsense?In ST V the Enterprise A reached the center of the galaxy in a few days. Was it really the center of the galaxy? Did it only take a few days? Don't sweat the details, it's not key to the story, so the writer didn't make a point of it.
Which is why they've been extensively calculated by Mike Wong on his own website.I'm very capable of telling the difference. My point went over your head. The times and speeds are abstract, and very hard to judge.
Yeah, its not like the shields are constantly and repeatedly mentioned everywhere else in the EU and the presence of such a shield was a plot point in ESB.As for planetary shields, SW fans came up with them based on a few fames in the Alderan destruction seen, a crescent of light from the point were the beam hits. In the remastered digital version, the crescent effect is gone. Did the shield disappear? No, it was never there.
In the Hand of Thawn Duology it is specifically mentioned by the then Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet that the Empire once had over 25,000 Star Destroyers alone. Completely disregarding any other ship types.First the empire has fewer then 1,000 ships.
In the novel Death Star it is specifially mentioned that the Death Star and Star Destroyers are powered by hypermatter reactors. Therefore hypermatter reactors are canon. Not to mention the ICS etc saying the same thing...Matter fusion or what ever your calling it was dreamed up by a fan, and accepted by fanboys, because they couldn't accept the limits of fusion drive. They have to ignore the obvious to make it sound more advanced.
Thrawn's analysis of the loss of Battle Meditation in Heir to the Empire would indicate that the effect was more like drug withdrawal - mentaly shattering to the point where veteran troops and officers were acting like cadets.The Emperor's death ended his Battle Meditation and resulted in a major loss of cohesion. that, followed by the flagship being destroyed AND the Death Star's annihilation is what we call a "morale blow."Second the fleet was inadequate for the job. even with the DS in support the fleet was beaten in a stand up fight.
Tarkin mentions millions of systems.The empire does not cover a large Galaxy like the Milky Way. The Empire has tens of thousands of systems.
Planetary shield are mentioned in the EU specifically for the planets Coruscant, Bothawui, Caamas amongst others. Grand Admiral Thrawn made specific tactics with cloaked cruisers to defeat planetary shields. Torpedo Sphere's were also made to counter planetary shields.As for planetary shields, SW fans came up with them based on a few fames in the Alderan destruction seen, a crescent of light from the point were the beam hits. In the remastered digital version, the crescent effect is gone. Did the shield disappear? No, it was never there.
BINGO! - they don't act like lasers so therefore they cannot be lasers. For one thing they dont travel at the speed of lightWeapons in SW are stated to be lasers though they don't look or act that way, a lot of the time.
The Mutara nebula was glowing. Nebulae don't do that unless there's a star already in or nearby the nebula supplying the energy. All we saw Genesis do was make one lousy planet... which then blew up later anyway after everything went ape-shit on the surface. Yeah, some great job of creation there.You guys missed the whole point. Not only did it make a planet, did you forget the star it made? There was no star there before, just gas. If you think building the DS was a greater technical feat, it shows your just fixated on destruction. Changing the nature of matter on that scale is a feat magnitudes above scaling up a laser. Creating lifeforms by design, and a whole ecosystem for them is staggering. The level of complexity is off the chart. Your guys are being obtuse, in other words block heads not to understand what would be involved in such a feat, and what it would mean.
" The nebula was already very close to the Regula system, wasn't it? Seeing as how the Enterprise limped from the planetoid to the nebula on impulse.Wyrm wrote:The Mutara nebula was glowing. Nebulae don't do that unless there's a star already in or nearby the nebula supplying the energy. All we saw Genesis do was make one lousy planet... which then blew up later anyway after everything went ape-shit on the surface. Yeah, some great job of creation there.You guys missed the whole point. Not only did it make a planet, did you forget the star it made? There was no star there before, just gas. If you think building the DS was a greater technical feat, it shows your just fixated on destruction. Changing the nature of matter on that scale is a feat magnitudes above scaling up a laser. Creating lifeforms by design, and a whole ecosystem for them is staggering. The level of complexity is off the chart. Your guys are being obtuse, in other words block heads not to understand what would be involved in such a feat, and what it would mean.
Yeah, because Han Solo said so.Swindle1984 wrote:Holy shit, did this dumbass actually say the Empire has less than a thousand ships?
I've always thought the 25,000 ISD figure is for the Imperial Navy, while sector guard fleets (whatever they are called) number higher. Mainly from this quote here:Swindle1984 wrote:Holy shit, did this dumbass actually say the Empire has less than a thousand ships?
Wow. That's some pure, Grade-A concentrated Stupid right there.
Do we know if the 25,000 Star Destroyer figure was inclusive of ISD Mk.I and ISD Mk.II, as well as the transitional ships, or just one variety of ISD?
What about other Star Destroyers, like the Victory and Tector?
Who wrote this? wrote:Then you are a moron. ? The RotJ novel states that the Empire is made up thousands of sectors. ? From the same G canon novel a typical sector group is 1 SSD (Com ship 6Km) and 24 ISD plus thousands of lesser war ships. ? If we take 2,0000 as a lower limit that’s 2,000 SSD and 48,000 ISD with millions of lesser war ships. ?The ANH novel and movie mentions Over Sectors which Moff Tarken was over one. ?In the Black Fleet books we learn that a Over Sector is made up of 3 SSD and 60 ISD and was over 3 sectors. ?That means for Over Sectors 2,000 SSD and 40,000 ISD with millions of smaller warships. ?So for a lower limit of war ships for the Empire we have 4,000 SSD and 88,000 ISD with millions of lesser Warships. ?This is not counting roving units like Death Squadron. ?The movie RotS implies the Empire is made up of at least 6,000 sectors.
Yeah, that too. I thought of that angle when I was at work.Darth Onasi wrote:The nebula was already very close to the Regula system, wasn't it? Seeing as how the Enterprise limped from the planetoid to the nebula on impulse.
"
And completely and utterly FAILED.Hi guys. I was going to send you both a completely different message. I wanted to tone down the anger and rudeness, and try to discuss some basics. All that went out the window because I looked up Hypermatter and now understand were all your assumptions are coming from.
It's taken me about 10mins to stop laughing. I used to think that ST was a very optimistic vision of human technical, and social progress. The tech was loosely based on what might be possible, while trying to maintain some type of human scale, and real world values. What I just read is off the chart.
You win, you can beat ST. You guys are living in the realm of the worst comic book dribble. Like all the Marvel characters who can destroy "The Whole Universe". Or fly across the universe in a few minutes. Or control reality at will. Or can just do ANYTHING. This is the realm of EE. Doc Smith and the "Lensmen" series, which in some ways inspired the "Green Lantern Corp".
A Venator class Destroyer putting out 3.6x10*24 power watts of power. The US power grid puts out about 700 GW. The average energy usage of the whole human race is about 15 terawatts. The Venator puts out more then 200 billion times greater energy.
Max fuel consumption 40,000 tons per second. One hour of full power combat would consume 14,400,000 tons. If normal none combat operations consumed 10% out put, weekly consumption would be 241,920,000 tons. If this fuel load accounted for 10% of ships mass, she would =2.4 billion tons. About 1,000 times the weight of the late WTC. The ship would be 100 times larger then a Nimitz class carrier, but massing 24,000 times more. Or more then 3,000 times the mass of the largest fully loaded supertanker in the world.
The funniest part of all this is Hypermatter is made of Bull shit. Star Trek tech is attacked endlessly for inconsistencies in comments be characters on the show, and inconsistent writing out of hundreds of shows. Yes it only a TV show, But things like matter/antimatter, are based on real world theory. They made some effort.
No. We DON'T. That's the difference between Trek and Wars. WARS never claimed to be scientifically accurate, while Trek DID and spectacularly failed at it at every turn.You guys think this is scientific?
Essentially, yes. This is SciFi so we would call it technobabble but that is what it amounts to.That you take this seriously is pathetic. You say when a phaser disintegrates an object it's magic?
We don't . You do. This is TREK doing it you know.And you think this is anything better then comic book crap?
You don't like Star Wars, ignore it. A lot of the people here who DO like Star Wars ignore a lot of it anyway. Ask Stark about the EU sometime.I have heard for many years that ST was science fiction, and SW was fantasy. I always defended SW that you could fudge for dramatic license, like almost all sci/fi. I called it "soft sci/fi" But to read that the "Dreaded Imperial Star Fleet" is powered by pure 'BULL SHIT". Sun crushers, planet devastators? Just childish.
Nice analogy, as Hitler essentially controlled the entire planet...Oh wait.On strategy the mindless comment about the Emperor not needing allies. Only a fool thinks like that. Ever hear of Hitler? He failed because he united most of the world against him.
Can we skip to some analogies that are actually, you know, analogous? Because so far you mentioned situations where someone controlling a minor fraction of the available real estate needed allies when Palpatine controlled THE ENTIRE VALENDAMNED GALAXY!Napoleon had few willing allies, so when the tide turned against him, they abandoned him, and joined the ranks of his enemies. Great empires have no permanency if their people see no advantage to being part of it.
As they only controlled a fraction of Eurasia leave alone the entire planet this is relevant why?The Mongols had the greatest empire in history, with one of the longest runs of military victories. One defeat in 100 years. Yet it had little long term impact accept in the negative, and was almost totally unlamented.
I take it you are talking about the Imperial fleet. Because the Alliance, y'know, sort of WON the Battle of Endor.You deny the obvious. ADM Akbar wanted to jump away, but Lando talked him out of it. The fleet lost the battle, that's a fact, it happened.
Which changes the fact that it happened how, exactly?Giving up because the Emperor was propping them up mentally, is a "Push button to defeat villain" ploy.
Toxic antimatter residue. You were saying? At least Star Wars managed to avoid presenting pseudoscientific expanations that are FACTUALLY WRONG.The movie. and series had to end at that point, the story had run it's course. That's right boys and girls SW in just a story too. In this case a "Science Fairy Tale." Hypermatter, ha,ha,ha,ha. I know you have the numbers, and have made the calculations. Ha,ha,ha,ha.
Thanks, concession accepted.You win, you can beat ST.
So? What's your point?You guys are living in the realm of the worst comic book dribble. Like all the Marvel characters who can destroy "The Whole Universe". Or fly across the universe in a few minutes. Or control reality at will. Or can just do ANYTHING. This is the realm of EE. Doc Smith and the "Lensmen" series, which in some ways inspired the "Green Lantern Corp".
What's he trying to say here, that Star Wars is somehow inferior because its tech is so mind-bendingly powerful compared to modern technology?*snip commentary on POWER OVERWHELMING*
Psst. You're arguing on the internet.That you take this seriously is pathetic.
What someone wants and what they are capable of are two completely different things.You deny the obvious. ADM Akbar wanted to jump away, but Lando talked him out of it.
And that changes that it was what happened.....how?Giving up because the Emperor was propping them up mentally, is a "Push button to defeat villain" ploy.
Not so fast buddy, i bet he'll make at least one "Trek makes better Androids because they look more human" argument before going for the "superior" morality.Darth Onasi wrote:So he's given up on the in-universe vs. to concentrate on Trek being superior to Wars because it... mixes real-world terminology into it's fantasy nonsense and Star Wars doesn't?
Standard Trekkie "you won the battle but I'll win the war!" mentality it looks like. Trek just *has* to win at some point or.. I don't know, their fragile little world shatters around them I guess.
Next he'll go on about Trek's "superior" morality.