StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Planets

Posted: 2011-08-23 12:27pm 

In 2373 the Maw Irregular Fleet (in place of the Dominion), commanded by Admiral Daala, attempts to invade the United Federation of Planets.
The Maw Irregular Fleet has three years of supplies.
Assume high-end Star Wars calculations.

The Federation has placed the entirety of Starfleet under the command of Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Thrawn had ten years to prepare a strategy (but only a week to implement it before Daala’s arrival) and is trying to win.
Thrawn is also limited standard Federation technologies (no tech of the week)

Admiral Daala is at her least (combined) emotionally stable, sane, and competent.
Grand Admiral Thrawn is at the height of his (combined) intellectual, strategic, tactical genius.

Can Thrawn’s battlefield brilliance overcome being this overwhelmingly outgunned?
Can Daala with her (perceived) incompetence still lose with this much of an advantage?

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:21pm 

Well, if we use Starcrossed as a standard, I would say the Feds have a good chance, since the SW tech owners are considerably worse off in all respects, except, perhaps, supplies.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:25pm 

If Thrawn fights an insurgency and avoids a straight fight, perhaps. Or if he sets up a good ambush (there was some discussion in recent threads about using cloaked ships to try to attack Star Destroyers by using cloaked shuttles to hit them inside the hanger bay). So yes, I'd say he could, but he'd probably still take very disproportionate losses.

Unless the Maw fleet includes the Sun Crusher and prototype Death Star they were guarding. Then I don't know if even Thrawn can win it. Also, does the Maw fleet have its home base as well, or just the ships?

Omeganian, we can't use Starcrossed as a standard, since the OP specified "high-end Star Wars calculations..."

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:32pm 

The Maw Irregular Fleet is the fleet assembled by Admiral Daala during the Second Galactic civil War. It includes at least two Venators, one Victory and has the ISD-II Chimera as it's flagship.

Also, why the hell would Starfleet place itself under Thrawn's command? And why the arbitray "ten year head start to plan but only a week to implement it"? Presumably that's to stop him crash-building masses of ships and fortresses around wherever the MIF turns up.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:36pm 

Huh. I thought it referred to the fleet she had originally guarding the secret installation in the Maw, which as I recall was four ISDs.

I looked it up, and Wookieepedia lists its assets as:



http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Maw_Irregular_Fleet

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:38pm 

Excellent Point, for purposes of this senario the Maw Irregular Fleet consists of the following vessels

Imperial II-class Star Destroyer (Chimaera)
1 Turbulent-class Star Destroyer (Bloodfin)
1 Acclamator I-class assault ship
1 Venator-class Star Destroyer
1 Victory-class Star Destroyer
2 Republic-class cruisers
Scimitar-class frigates
2 Crusader-class corvettes
Assassin-class corvettes
Scimitar assault bombers
TIE Fighters
Miscellaneous (precise designations unknown) various fighter types (mostly outdated)

No home base, just Daala's fleet in the Star Trek galaxy.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:40pm 

It’s as much Thrawn versus Daala (with a ridiculous handicap) as Trek Vs Wars. . .

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:42pm 

To clarify - for this senario we’re using calculations from Star Wars: Incredible Cross Sections, obviously.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 03:47pm 

I'd swear it was two Venators, but I haven't got that book to hand right now (it's boxed up preparatory to moving house) so whatever.

I think this MIF is probably more powerful than her original 4x ISD-I (Gorgon, Basilisk, Hydra, Manticore IIRC). (Although Dalla at the height of her power had 1x SSD, 17/18x ISD-II and ~70x VSD-II's, she managed to lose the SSD and the ISD's. Moron.)

I still don't get the ridiculous arbitrary nature of the OP. Also, where is the MIF arriving from? Is it rolling through the wormhole to DS9? Is it coming elsewhere or what? How does Thrawn know it's coming? Does Thrawn's influence in Starfleet extend to Federation foreign policy and industrial/shipbuilding policies in the preceeding ten years? Why is Daala limited to such forces? We need a few more details.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 04:04pm 

Daala’s Maw Irregular Fleet is arriving from outside the Milky Way, she took the long way around.

It’s the fleet Daala uses for most all of her initial appearances.
It’s also the only fleet that would follow Daala into another Galaxy with limited logistical support.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-23 04:28pm 

Starfleet knows the Maw Irregular Fleet is coming and knows how badly they would lose if left to their own devices.
What’s a good reason as to why - a bad first contact, meddling from an appropriate (Trek is full of them, can’t throw a rock without encountering one) entity of sufficient power, maybe a Minority Report style future viewing experiment with the Guardian of Forever?
I personally prefer a warning from Thrawn backed with sufficient evidence.
How does Thrawn know? Daala’s not always particularly subtle, Thrawn just had to reach the Trek galaxy before she did.

Not in the preceding ten years, the Federation is pretty much stuck with whatever they can put together in a week’s time.
Thrawn has influence over the Federation’s foreign policy and industrial/shipbuilding policies now – but he still only has a week.
In about a week the Maw Irregular Fleet reaches Federation space with intentions of conquest and destruction - Daala’s usual hat.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 12:15am 

Throwing Thrawn into the picture (and how the fuck is that supposed to happen, anyway?) does not change the fact that SW ships are invariably orders of magnitude tougher, of greater firepower, and most importantly, faster than ST ships. And while it's true Natasi Daala was promoted well past her particular level of competence (in hindsight, she shouldn't have made it past captain), I'm sure even she is familiar with the adage that you don't fight unless you have to. Maybe she can't face Starfleet on an even keel (weight of numbers might make up for lack of firepower), but she doesn't have to: she can just hyperjump straight past the Federation defenders, bombard inhabited worlds, then hyperjump back out, all at speeds beyond the abilities of any ship in the Alpha Quadrant. Hyperdrive makes for nigh-unstoppable hit-and-run tactics in the ST universe.

Thrawn would concede the field here. While it's true that he's a brilliant fleet commander, what makes him unique as a villain is that he can recognize when he's beaten. Note his response to Lando's technobabble attack at Sluis Van in Heir to the Empire: he retreated.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 02:24am 

Recently I [being the major dork that i am] began comparing ship sizes in both the star wars and star trek universe. Copying and pasting ships side by side [yes i know i am a dork], i came to realize that though the Empire has a crap load of ships, not to mention BIGGER ships, weapons simply arent on the side of star wars. Now i am fully aware of the lethality of the Death Star as well as the sun crusher, understand these 2 are just exceptions. Your typical star destroyer [or even an eclipse class star destroyer] are armed with turbo lasers. In the episode the outrageous okona,

"Captain, they are now locking lasers on us."
"Lasers!?"
"Yes, sir."
"Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?"
"Regulations do call for yellow alert."
"Hmm, a very old regulation. Well, make it so Number One. And, reduce speed... drop main shields, as well."
"May I ask why, sir?"
"In case we decide to surrender to them, Number One... " (Memory Alpha, 2011).

- Worf, Riker, and Picard

Star destroyer versus a defiant class warship? No.
Also in the Star wars universe, Proton Torpedos are very powerful weapons only used piecemeal. In star trek, they use it all the time lol, and the yields are far more powerful. Proton versus Quantum and Photon? meh...

This being said, i will say Star wars has bigger ships. The Eclipse, Sovereign class SD and executor class are virtual behemoths compared to say, a romulan warbird [Twice the size of a Galaxy class starship]. It would take a dozen warbirds to make 1 Executor in terms of mass and volume. Star trek would need to have an entire fleet to take out 1 Executor, if that. In the Star wars canon tech books, the Empire has "trillions of soldiers", and "hundreds of thousands of ships". Star trek would have a shite time taking them all, even if the shields on SD's arent impressive.

The advantage in terms of tactical systems star wars beats star trek is definitely its hyper drive systems. Then again the Death star would just destroy any ship that came into sensors.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 02:45am 

He may have retreated, but he didn't surrender. Your point is invalid.

The OP is actually interesting, since it appears to be more of a clash between two different Imperial flag officers than it is about the technology. I don't know enough about Daala though to really form an opinion, but from all I know she was a mere base commander for special/black projects and had minimal forces under her command, whereas Thrawn was a Grand Admiral who commanded large fleets on a regular basis. Leaving aside the mystique of the character, that alone gives him a considerable advantage.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 07:13am 

Wait, Daala used the MIF much later in her personal timeline, at Fondor during the Legacy era. If you mean the forces she had initially, it's four ISD-1's. Gorgon, Basilisk, Hydra and Manticore.

You are referring to two different fleets. Her initial force that guarded the Maw and the fleet she turned up at Fondor, twenty-something years later. Which is it?

Also, The situation with Thrawn seems impossible. He has been there for ten years, knowing Daala is coming, and pi]warning the Federation countless times no doubt[/i], but he is NOT allowed to institute a crash building/fortification program during those ten years?

That does not compute.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 12:41pm 

My assertion was somewhat hyperbole.
Technically speaking, ship per ship, the Maw Irregular Fleet is the not Daala’s original force.
The Maw Irregular Fleet is, however, directly (albeit loosely) derived from the fleet defending Maw.
The Imperial remnant survivors from the Battle of the Maw Installation eventually formed the core of the Maw Irregular Fleet.

I still believe that the Maw Irregular Fleet is the fleet most likely to willingly follow Daala into another Galaxy.The situation with Thrawn is no less impossible than many other Trek Vs Wars scenarios.

There could be many reasonable explanations why it could take Thrawn ten years to convince the Federation; Thrawn might have only arrived a week before Daala or spent a decade studying the Trek galaxy.

I personally think your theory, the Federation Council continuously ignoring Thrawns consistent warnings, to be hilarious – it’s a fun mental image.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 01:10pm 

@Danny:

Turbolasers are NOT 'lasers'. They are, from visual evidence, obviously firing a sub-light beam; granted, it's very fast, but it doesn't propagate instanteously like a laser beam would.

While there has been a fair amount of debate on exactly what turbolasers are, the generally accepted theory is that the coloured portion of the beam is merely a visual indicator of some form, because there is visual evidence of destruction occurring before the green or red beam actually impacts the target.

Additionally, the guns of a military transport, the Acclamator, produce 200 gigatons; this is enough power to cause an extinction event upon a planet. Star Destroyers are full military battleships; it goes without saying that their main weaponry is going to be far more powerful.

Star Destroyers vaporize asteroids in Empire Strikes Back; by contrast, the Enterprise-D can barely dent another asteroid in an episode of TNG.

You will please provide evidence for your assertion that the Defiant-class ships can defeat a Star Destroyer, given the overwhelming disparity in firepower. Also, provide evidence that photon torpedoes are more powerful than proton torpedoes.

Trust me, Trek is going to lose hard to a hell of a lot of sci-fi militaries, let alone Star Wars...

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 02:57pm 

And yet in the episode "Loud as a Whisper" Picard refuses to bring his ship into a warzone where the combatants are firing lasers until the ceasefire is reestablished because he doesn't want to endanger the Enterprise. In "Conundrum" the Enterprise has to raise its shields to full power to resist the pulse lasers of the Lyssians instead of simply relying on their navigational shields. And the script for "Q Who?" notes that the borg cutting beam is a laser

The above quote pretty clearly isn't indicating a blanket immunity to lasers, given all of the counter examples available. It's simply indicating that the lasers in that particular situation aren't a threat.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:11pm 

Danny, read the main site. Every single one of your arguments has been refuted a thousand times over.

Oh my God, I don't believe it. A "no-lasers" Trekkie? I thought those were extinct. Looks like they're pulling an ivory-bill.

(Incidentally, take a look at this chart for a good comparison of the sizes of various ships and stations in various series.)

Take a look at this. Our own Darth Wong, a well-known veteran of the SWvST debate, mentions the "Okona"-based "no lasers" argument, then merrily shreds it on cross. It's quite clear to anyone who looks beyond just the dialog, which has been proven erroneous countless other times, I might add, that the Enterprise's command crew was talking about those specific lasers as having insufficient power to penetrate the nav deflector. And since Elheru Aran already explained that turbolasers are not lasers (the official explanation is that they are a particle beam energized by a laser, incidentally), I don't have to.


By SW standards, a Defiant-class is a heavy gunship or corvette, not a capital warship. It's very dangerous to ST ships, sure, but SW ships are uniformly several orders of magnitude tougher (I'll get to that in a minute), faster (as you yourself admitted), and more powerful ( than anything in ST canon. The Defiant would go buzzing around the ISD's bridge tower like a fly, shooting ineffectually until the ISD's captain got bored with pointing-and-laughing and swatted it.


Proton and photon torpedoes are not the same thing, despite the similarity in name (and I admit to having once been confused on this point myself). Proton torpedoes are typically fighter-scale weapons that use a nuclear shaped charge. I say "typically" because there's evidence (see Specter of the Past by Timothy Zahn) that larger versions are mounted on Imperial II-class star destroyers as secondary weapons. Nevertheless, proton torps are not the heaviest weapons on SW ships; that honor canonically falls to their heavy turbolaser batteries.

By contrast, photon torpedoes are capital ship weapons, and canonically the heaviest weapons carried by a ST faction. According to the various Technical Manuals (which aren't canon, incidentally), they are essentially matter/antimatter missiles with a maximum yield of 64 megatons.


Wow, he started good, then went back to BS at the last second. You're absolutely right: SW capital ships are invariably several times larger than ST capital ships, and the Empire has thousands of times the manpower and ships of all the major players in ST put together.

But then you go to the shields argument. As Elheru Aran mentioned, the heavy turbolasers on the Acclamator-class, a troop transport that predates the Empire, produce 200 gigatons at maximum yield. This had been previously calculated via visual evidence during the SWvST debate, and was made indisputably canon by Episode 2 Incredible Cross-Sections. True warships in the Imperial era are likely to have guns even more powerful. Now, a rule of thumb in real-life warship design is that you armor your ships to fend off their own firepower or greater. I have no reason to believe that this adage was forgotten by the Empire, and plenty of evidence that supports it: capital ship duels in SW canon invariably last several minutes at the very least, trading broadsides of hundreds of gigatons per shot.

So, since SW capital ships are designed to last several minutes against their own multi-gigaton firepower, it's no exaggeration to say they would laugh off anything in the ST arsenal.


As I have laboriously explained (I must be a masochist), hyperdrive is just one of the advantages of SW systems. Using the Death Star (or any other SW superweapon for that matter) is overkill.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:21pm 

The asteroid credited with wiping out the Dinosaurs was about 100 TT. Not even the largest impact to have occurred in prehistoric times either. Observe:

http://www.universetoday.com/19616/eart ... t-craters/

That said, an Acclamator is perfectly capable of causing an extinction event. It just needs more than one shot.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:28pm 

No maths! A dozen Romulan Warbirds end-to-end might equal the length of that "behemoth" Executor. It would take a whole fuckton more to equal it in mass and volume.

From Memory Alpha:
Romulan D'deridex Warbird:
Dimensions: Length, 1,041.65 meters; beam, 772.43 meters; height, 285.47 meters
Mass: 4,320,000 metric tonnes (est.)

So even on length alone you need 18 to match an Executor SSD at 19km. I have no idea what the SSD's mass is but I am certain that it is considerably more than 18x 4320000 tonnes.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:52pm 

I read an incident in Parting Shots where a guy basically accused Saxton of cheating in the SWvST firepower debate by canonizing 200GT for the Acclamator-class. Other folks here on the forum told him that the 200GT figure reflected calculations others had made.


When has this happened in recent memory?

Okay, I was actually thinking of the WWI-era battleships I researched for a high school paper on the Battle of Jutland. I read that to be a rule of thumb somewhere (not sure where at this point, unfortunately). It was put into stark relief by the piss-poor performance of Vadm. Beatty's battlecruisers at Jutland, because they broke this rule. Battlecruisers were designed to hunt light capital ships, were armored to fend off the weapons mounted by such vessels, and armed with battleship-scale cannon. In short, they were fast, heavily armed, and lightly defended. They worked fine against destroyers and cruisers, but shots from superdreadnoughts handily ruined their day. A similar incident in WWII cost the Royal Navy the HMS Hood, a battlecruiser, when she challenged the Bismarck, a battleship.

By contrast, despite several lengthy clashes between actual battleships at Jutland, the only battleship sunk there was the pre-dreadnought SMS Pommern.


@Eternal_Freedom: I hate to defend a no-lasers Trekkie, but he was probably going from one of the many inaccurate, conflicting figures for the size of Executor that we've received over the years. It was only recently that Lucasfilm officially set her length at 19km. I myself used the 8km number as a reference for designing a starship at one point.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:55pm 

No offense to anyone, but we’re going a little off-topic rehashing the various arguments over offensive firepower.

This senario assumes Incredible Cross-Sections power for the Maw Irregular Fleet; Thrawn has Trek’s multi-Megaton firepower whereas Daala’s equivalent will measure in multi-Gigatons. Any actual validity of these figures is entirely irrelevant to the senario.

These figures are being used to determine if Thrawn can overcome the disadvantage.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:57pm 

8km or otherwise, it's still a retarded one-dimensional (literally) idea - that length alone defines how large a spacecraft is.

On the "warships die from their own weapons," weapons like Harpoon and Tomahawk are designed to sink destroyers and cruisers, and are carried by destroyers and cruisers. I think thats what DXIII meant.

 Post subject: Re: Maw Irregular Fleet versus the United Federation of Plan

Posted: 2011-08-24 03:59pm 

@Elheru Aran,
In response to your post. This is a rather long explanation, but bear with me. Eventually I make my case, even if it’s the length of a CS Lewis novel.

Torpedoes:
In star trek, there are many variations of torpedos, the other being more powerful than the other. In terms of yield, a ST photon torpedo can have a yield of 20-30 isotons. In the ST universe, its apparently very easy to modify the yield of a torpedo, taking as little as a few hours. In the VOY episode The Omega Directive, a single 50 isoton photon warhead is enough to “Destroy a small planet”. (Memory Alpha).
In SW, an “Imperial MG7-A proton torpedoes are nuclear weapons utilizing advanced technology to direct the energy release toward the target rather than allowing it to disperse in all directions” (star destroyer tech). In ST, nuclear weapons [though still dangerous] are still considered “primitive”, and were replaced with photons after the first Romulan-Federation war. In the TOS “Balance of Terror”, weapons fought between both sides were atomic in nature, and fairly primitive.
Plus according to the same site, “most proton torpedoes are low-yield devices intended for use against "soft targets" like ground installations or fighters, and proton torpedoes are generally useless against capital ships until their shields are dropped. Even the special emission-type heavy proton torpedoes carried by B-wing fighters are totally useless against capital ships until their shields are dropped, but they are useful against smaller targets” (Star destroyer tech).
Proton Torpedeos aren’t exactly weak- since they are used in planetary bombardments according to SW tech manuals, but a single proton torpedo could not match the lethality of a ST 50 isoton torpedo. A defiant class can launch several torpedoes to a SD and do significant damage.

Turbolasers:
A Turbolaser is” the immensely scaled up version of the blaster and laser cannon”. (Wookipeedia). In A New Hope, LT Tanbris reports to Vader “We count thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader, but they're so small they're evading our turbolasers” (Wookieepedia). This brings us up to the 3rd issue- speed. A defiant class ship measured at 120 meters in length, is extremely fast. Though dwarfed in comparison to a Star Destroyer (1600 meters in length), The defiant has maneuverability and speed that makes a fighter look like its standing still. In the ST DS9 episodes Valiant and Shattered Mirror, the defiant runs laps around a massive dreadnought battleship. In Valiant, the defiant class ship goes head to head with a massive dominion battleship which twice the size of a galaxy class, would be 1240 meters in length. In this episode, the defiant literally wizzes pass the battleship. Now your going to say “Its because the fighter is SMALL, not FAST, that makes it harder to destroy”. True, however a fighter’s size gives its speed and maneuverability. Since the federation themselves have fighters [peregrine class/attack fighters], I doubt the star destroyer will be able to lock on a Defiant. Plus understand turbolaser turrets are MANNED by gunners [Revenge of the Sith, New Hope and Return of the Jedi]. In ST- weapons are automated. Gunners wouldn’t be able to target a defiant class ship since its too damn fast.
A defiant class ship has the capability to destroy a planet, a typical star destroyer cannot. In A New Hope, there is speculation the empire destroyed Alderaan.

Kenobi: Destroyed by the empire
Solo: The entire Starfleet couldn’t destroy the whole planet. It would take a thousand ships with more firepower than a hy---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IljNkPrJ-rQ Go to 4:20.


In ST, ships usually can tear apart a planet. In DS9’s Broken Link, Garak responds to worf that the Defiant had all the armament to turn the changeling planet to a smoldering ruin. In The Die is Cast”, a small fleet of ships [20 to be exact] opening volley destroyed 30 percent of the changelings planet crust. In a matter of 3 seconds, disrupter weapons caused significant damage to a planet, and 10 more minutes would have destroyed it. In ST TNG Legacy, The Enterprise’s phasers in 5 seconds sliced through the planet’s surface into a subterranean series of tunnels to allow a team to beam through.

I could mention more episodes, but I think I made my point. A fleet of Star Destroyers cant destroy a planet, but a single federation ship can. I reached the conclusion that the Defiant can easily destroy a Star Destroyer, and outrun it.

You also mentioned a SD can vaporize asteroid fields but the Enterprise couldn’t. In ST there have been several instances where asteroids were destroyed, but on others- couldn’t. In each case, it was because the asteroid contained a certain ore or mineral deposit that would prove to be too powerful for the Enterprise to destroy [in 1 particular case, would scatter too much debris over a planets atmosphere].

It makes no sense- in ST a ship can destroy a planet but not a specific asteroid? I know Its confusing, but its sci fi…

Would ST win against SW? I stated before in my earlier post no, since SW has hyper drive, too many friggin ships, and they got massive dreadnoughts such as the Eclipse and the Death Star to deal with. Its too much for ST to bear, and they would eventually just be outflanked. The Death Star alone would blow an entire fleet to pieces [unless star fleet fired tri-cobalt torpedoes or gravimetric torpedoes].

I know it took forever to make my point, but I like being precise and detailed as much as possible so I don’t have to repeat myself in other posts. If I made any continuity mistakes, be sure to let me know. I thoroughly enjoy debates.