Empire vs. Federation (A Variation)
Big Steve
strategy/tactical.
It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple hundred
star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
Federation's. NO DEATH STARS AND SUPER "BLOW 'EM UP QUICK" WEAPONS!
Time placing:
Federation: One year after Dominion War. Military buildup to prevent
another invasion from the GQ and to keep the Romulans in line has the
Fed fleet at approx. 10,000 starships. Defiants are now somewhat
common, and the Sovereign II-class is the dominant Federation
battleship. Excelsior IIIs, Ambassador IIs, Akiras, and Galaxy IIs are
the other major capital ships.
Empire: Expeditionary Force has about 10,000 warships, including 100
ISDs and ten ISDIIs, with two Executor-class SSDs as command vessels.
Ship comparisons (basically, if ships are "equal" on this scale a
tactical confrontation will be decided by tactics and the abilities of
the crew):
1 ISD = 1 Galaxy II
1 ISDII = 1 Sovereign II
1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
1 Tie Advanced = 1 Miranda or three Peregrines (or 1 Valkyrie, if you
want to count those kickass fighters in the soon-to-be-released
PlayStation game Star Trek: Invasion)
The SSDs will take a fleet to destroy straight up because of their
impressive weaponry and fighter compliment. However, an ROTJ-like event
can still destroy them.
Also, hyperdrive is roughly equal to warp. Why? Because I have used my
powers as the God of Fanfic to make it that way! So THERE! :-p j/k
No, really, hyperdrive and warp are equal.
We will assume that Imperial and Federation ground forces are competent.
<begins snickering>
LET THE PLANNING BEGIN!!!!!!
----------------------------
I AM THE GOD OF FANFIC!!!!!! BOW TO ME AND MY BUNGHOLE!!!!!!!!
IXJac
Big Steve
> 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
>
The Lancer isn't really comparable. Its an anti fighter cap ship that tends
to get creamed by other cap ships. The Empire really has no comparison to
the Defiant.
Perhaps Defiant = Victory ?
Big Steve
Hmm, how about three Defiants to a VSD?
--
PREDATOR
If firepower, numbers, and long distance travel speed are equal, the
Federation will win. Why? Massive tactical advantages. Federation
weapons have much larger tactical ranges, and warp is tactically
priceless due to its nature as a real space FTL travel method.
Psychologically neither will crack under the pressure, but the Imperials
will be more brutal. This wont be much different to the Dominion war
then. Perhaps the Imperials could have a slight strategic advantage?
Perhaps you should make hyperspace like 1.5* as fast as maximum warp or
something. That will make things much more interesting.
Big Steve
Hmm, not right now. We'll stick with my rules for now. :-)
------------------------
How do you know if you've been in a real 'Mech battle? You walk out of
it low on ammo, with a limp, and 5% armor remaining on each part of your
torso.
Natasha Kerensky: The nastiest badass to ever pilot a 'Mech
Remember thy sacred commandments, MechWarriors:
I am the Lanceleader from Hell: if thou fucketh up, thou shalt not like
the consequences.
Killeth the meat, spareth the metal
'Mechs haveth the right of way on the battlefield: if an enemy tank or
infantryman getteth in the way, crusheth him under thy mighty foot of
death.
It is said that a house divided cannot standeth. Neither can a 'Mech
with a leg blown off.
Thou shalt use the Alpha Strike key only as a last resort.
If thou hath too many energy weapons, thou shalt never press the Alpha
Strike key unless thou wishes to explode and kill everything within 200
meters.
Thou shalt remember the most important rule of all: Victory at all
costs.
Robert Williams
Big Steve wrote in message <393CA0CF...@cfl.rr.com>...
>OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
>strategy/tactical.
>
>It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple hundred
>star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
>Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
>Federation's.
Then the Empire wins, with superior tech. I don't care about your 'No Tech'
thing. Its way too important to ignore, you fantasist.
Rob
Robert Williams
>the Defiant.
Defiant = Correllian corvette.
Rob
Rog
1. You took away all of the Empires advantages (and you gave them a weaker
fleet)
2. The Federation is fighting on home ground.
This isn't a realistic simulation (BTW I don't think that you need to make
the Empire super powerful to have one either).
--
Rog
"Theory is so much better than practice"
ASVS landwebsite: www.asvsland.co.uk
Matthew Hyde
> Big Steve
> > 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
> >
My 1962 Lancer with the 225 slant 6 and pushbutton trans mops up all over
the Defiant. No exploding dashboards either, just a nice tank-sounding
exhaust.
--
Matt Hyde
Math Lab Consultant
Intellectuals always hope for the best. It's called cynicism.
--Mark Helprin
Kynes
> OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
> strategy/tactical.
No, what this is is a farce.
Warp and hyperdrive are NOT equal. The Federation does NOT have 10,000 starships.
A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"Discussions which lack moral or normative assessments are rarely interesting."
- Emily Cuatto
Reid
--
Reid
"You might feel a slight sting. That's the force, it's fucking with you.
Fuck the force" - Dart Vader - Pulp Phantom
iceberg3k
nospam...@cyberspace.hell (Ashen-Shugar) wrote:
>sub-space transmission from Big Steve <wolfp...@cfl.rr.com> :
<snip>
>Steve, I reckon however you limit the Imps, they still come up
winners
>in any strategic scenario because of their superior comms speed,
the
>inherent cloaked nature of hyperdrive, planetary shields,
mechanised
>support for infantry units, experience at planetary subjugation,
the
>willingness to bombard a world into submission, etc. The Feds
lose.
>
>The only discussion worth having is how the ships compare on a
>tactical level, and it comes down to design philosophy and raw
>firepower versus maneuverability. Imp ships are purpose built
warships
>with multiple independent fail-safes, with large sections of a
ship
>being able to operate totally independently of damage to other
>sectors. Fed ships have a central computer core, a central power
core,
>a central comamnd structure, etc. Knock one major system out and
the
>entire ship is useless.
IMPERIAL GUNNER: Gee, look at those big glowing things on the
sides of that ship, I wonder if they're important. *shoots*
*Federation ship explodes*
IMPERIAL GUNNER: I guess they WERE important! Hey, guys, look at
this gun-camera footage.
OTHER GUNNERS: We can do that!!!
-- Mark
-ARK, ASVS, ARCR-C
-"Veni vidi vici." - Julius Caesar
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ashen-Shugar
>OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
>strategy/tactical.
>
>It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple hundred
>star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
>Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
>Federation's. NO DEATH STARS AND SUPER "BLOW 'EM UP QUICK" WEAPONS!
What's this 'enhanced industrial capability'? You mean 'reduced
industrial capability' surely? I have never seen the Feds construct
anything like an SSD in a few months (maybe a year) and a full-blown
DS in a year or two.
>
>Time placing:
>
>Federation: One year after Dominion War. Military buildup to prevent
>another invasion from the GQ and to keep the Romulans in line has the
>Fed fleet at approx. 10,000 starships. Defiants are now somewhat
>common, and the Sovereign II-class is the dominant Federation
>battleship. Excelsior IIIs, Ambassador IIs, Akiras, and Galaxy IIs are
>the other major capital ships.
>
>Empire: Expeditionary Force has about 10,000 warships, including 100
>ISDs and ten ISDIIs, with two Executor-class SSDs as command vessels.
>
>Ship comparisons (basically, if ships are "equal" on this scale a
>tactical confrontation will be decided by tactics and the abilities of
>the crew):
>
>1 ISD = 1 Galaxy II
>
>1 ISDII = 1 Sovereign II
>
>1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
>
>1 Tie Advanced = 1 Miranda or three Peregrines (or 1 Valkyrie, if you
>want to count those kickass fighters in the soon-to-be-released
>PlayStation game Star Trek: Invasion)
>
>The SSDs will take a fleet to destroy straight up because of their
>impressive weaponry and fighter compliment. However, an ROTJ-like event
>can still destroy them.
>
>Also, hyperdrive is roughly equal to warp. Why? Because I have used my
>powers as the God of Fanfic to make it that way! So THERE! :-p j/k
>No, really, hyperdrive and warp are equal.
>
HUH!? I suppose you have to do that, 'cause hyperdrive gives the Imps
a MAJOR strategic advantage. Even 'equalised', the Imperial ability to
strike anywhere with (virtually) no forewarning with a concentrated
force still means the Feds eventually lose because the Imps will wipe
out the Fed resource base in no time, while being able to respond to
Fed fleet movements, though not as fast as 'actual' hyperspace
velocities would allow.
You would also have to make the rule that the Imps are not allowed
planetary shields because that renders their resource base virtually
immune to destruction.
Furthermore, you would have to make the rule that SSD's are not
allowed to bombard planets, because that effectively means the Imps
have three 'fleets' for strategic deployment:- the conventional
ships, two SSD's (which are each equivalent to a Fed 'fleet'.
>We will assume that Imperial and Federation ground forces are competent.
><begins snickering>
>
LOL!
What Fed ground forces?
In any case, you would have to make the rule that the Imps are not
allowed mechanised support, etc.
Boy, that sure is a lot of rules to give the Feds half a chance :-)
IMPERIAL STRATEGY
Divide fleet into task forces, and send multiple task forces to
bombard Fed industrial worlds. Even at the slow hyperdrive limit
allowed, the attacks would usually still be a complete surprise, and
without planetary shields, many Fed worlds are lost quickly.
Industrial advantage to the Imps in a war of attrition. Imp industrial
worlds protected by planetary shields.
Never engage Feds in deep space or uninhabited star systems. Force
them to fight at close quarters in a defensive mode. If the Feds
'blockade' any Imp world, raise the shields and let 'em stew while our
fleet goes to slag one of their worlds. This will tie down large
numbers of their ships in 'blockade' duty, while we slag their worlds
by the dozen. No need to blockade a slagged world.
Imps have better fleet co-ordination because of instantaneous
long-range communications, even over a galactic scale.
Steve, I reckon however you limit the Imps, they still come up winners
in any strategic scenario because of their superior comms speed, the
inherent cloaked nature of hyperdrive, planetary shields, mechanised
support for infantry units, experience at planetary subjugation, the
willingness to bombard a world into submission, etc. The Feds lose.
The only discussion worth having is how the ships compare on a
tactical level, and it comes down to design philosophy and raw
firepower versus maneuverability. Imp ships are purpose built warships
with multiple independent fail-safes, with large sections of a ship
being able to operate totally independently of damage to other
sectors. Fed ships have a central computer core, a central power core,
a central comamnd structure, etc. Knock one major system out and the
entire ship is useless.
------------------
Ashen-Shugar
------------------
Last of the Dragon Lords,
Greatest of the Valheru.
M.I.C.H.A.E.L.: Mechanical Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Assassination and Efficient Learning
Kyle
>
> The point of THIS DEBATE is to see the Empire win through strategy and
> tactics, not brute force supported by superior tech, OK?
Except, you've changed so much it is no longer SW vs. ST. It's ST vs ST
in SW clothes. One of the key strategies for use by Imps is hyperdrive.
As for a pure strategy or tactics debate, that isn't possible. What we
end up with is discussing the tactical and strategic abilities of the
posters. Tech is key to strategy, part of Strategy is finding the best
ways to use your equipment.
If you want to discuss tactics though just say, one ISD vs 2 Sovereign,
2 Akira's, and 3 Defiants, add the stipulation that no one can leave the
star system and that the Federation has a colony on the 3rd planet, and
the Empire on the 4th planet. Then debate who could destroy the others
colony first.
--
Kyle Knopf
Chuck
"Strowbridge" <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:393DAFC7...@home.com...
> Big Steve wrote:
>
> > > No, what this is is a farce.
>
> <SNIP!>
>
> > I'm SO SORRY that you have such a small mind. Does all debate HAVE to
> > have you using tech?
>
> YES! Other wise it is NOT a SW vs ST debate.
I have a vision of two groups of cavemen with piles of rocks. One pile has
the Federation symbol drawn on them, the other the Imperial symbol. Both
sides are just taking turns chucking rocks at each other.
--
Chuck
http://www.sfdebris.com
Rob Dalton
>One pile has the Federation symbol drawn on them, the other the
>Imperial symbol. Both sides are just taking turns chucking rocks
>at each other.
And then you have one ogreish Neanderthal-like being chucking
rocks up at himself ;)
Dalton
http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics
http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq
Chuck
"Rob Dalton" <daltonato...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:00e884ec...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> >I have a vision of two groups of cavemen with piles of rocks.
> >One pile has the Federation symbol drawn on them, the other the
> >Imperial symbol. Both sides are just taking turns chucking rocks
> >at each other.
>
> And then you have one ogreish Neanderthal-like being chucking
> rocks up at himself ;)
Hey, we can package this a little, swipe some musical numbers from West Side
Story, and sell it as a Broadway Musical!!!
--
Chuck
"No one ever conquered the world using a beta version."
Rob Dalton
"Chuck" <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Rob Dalton" <daltonato...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>message news:00e884ec...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
>> >I have a vision of two groups of cavemen with piles of rocks.
>> >One pile has the Federation symbol drawn on them, the other
>> >the Imperial symbol. Both sides are just taking turns
>> >chucking rocks at each other.
>>
>> And then you have one ogreish Neanderthal-like being chucking
>> rocks up at himself ;)
>Hey, we can package this a little, swipe some musical numbers
>from West Side Story, and sell it as a Broadway Musical!!!
I'd pay to see that.
Guardian2000
>
>> > 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
>> >
>
up all over
>the Defiant. No exploding dashboards either, just a nice tank-
sounding
>exhaust.
Well, since you referred to your automobile, I shall refer to
mine. My secondary vehicle is a 1989 Plymouth Sundance, where
all dorsal surfaces are covered in rust. Lateral surfaces are
losing paint rapidly. However, the remaining shades of blue
allow the vehicle to retain its name, the "Smurf Turd" (small
blue piece of shit!).
However, due to the fact that the vehicle, though every major
and minor system is broken or semi-broken in some way, refuses
to die, a friend of mine has labelled it "The Defiant".
(Just for kicks, a short list of the mechanical systems that are
nonfunctional or semifunctional:
Cylinders 2, 3, and 4 (also known as "Snap, Crackle, and Pop")
Transmission, second gear and overdrive. You know that "Yowmp!"
sound when you kill something in Quake? My transmission makes
that noise. Let's not forget the terrible shudder as it tries
to shift into second . . .
All gaskets leak. All of them. Also, the oil pressure sensor
has a port into the engine to take readings. However, this
sensor is wildly inaccurate, due to the fact that oil pours out
from around it whenever I decide to put oil in the vehicle.
The shock absorbers do not. Neither do the springs.
Power steering pump leaks fluid as fast as its poured in, though
getting it wet does allow the power steering system to function,
albeit with a breathy howling noise.
The brakes are at 40 percent, maybe. The rear brakes are
nonfunctional.
All speakers blown.
Vehicle makes a noise akin to massive flatulence at speeds in
excess of 25 mph. Source unknown.
I did recently replace all of the external lights in order to be
able to get a new inspection sticker, necessary since the old
one was two and a half years out of date. Prior to that, it had
one headlight, one forward turn signal, and one tailight that
did not brighten when the vehicle was braking. However, the
reverse lights were functional.
The headliner is only anchored at the windshield, the dome
light, and above the rear windshield. No hairstyle can survive
a trip in the Defiant.
The carpet has a peculiar color scheme, which it acquired after
a severe rain (and rolled-down windows) caused the passenger
compartment to flood to a level of six inches.
Due to the long period of time it was parked under a tree (until
my primary vehicle failed recently), it has been undergoing a
slow repainting with birdshit.)
I do agree, most whole-heartedly, that your Lancer could defeat
my Defiant, in this one case.
Rob Dalton
fuckin' funny guy. Congrats, you've made an Archive entry for
making my ribs hurt :)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Guardian2000
>I don't care what the other guys think of you - you are one
>fuckin' funny guy. Congrats, you've made an Archive entry for
>making my ribs hurt :)
Why thank you! I should note, however, that what I wrote was
merely a short list . . .
Spyda
Can I make a suggestion? Never EVER change the subject header.
--
_ _ _ _
\\ \\ // // Alone in the darkness...
\\ || || //
_ \\ \\ // //
|________________________\\ \\_// //_____________________________
| ____________________ \\/ \// ____________________________/
|ICQ#: 39921647 /_\ /_\ http://www.nano.dk/~spyda /
|_______________________// | | \\_________________________/
_| // /| |\ \\
// //| |\\ \\
// // \___/ \\ \\
// \\
Rog
Rog <ro...@slaanesh.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8hjd0o$36169$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> The Federation will win because of two things:
>
> 1. You took away all of the Empires advantages (and you gave them a
weaker
> fleet)
> 2. The Federation is fighting on home ground.
>
> This isn't a realistic simulation (BTW I don't think that you need to make
> the Empire super powerful to have one either).
>
>
state.
--
Rog
"One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them, one OS to bring them all and
in the darkness bind them" - Windows 98 copyright Microsoft corporation.
ASVS land website: www.asvsland.co.uk
Sardaukar
The point of the debate is not to strip the Empire of all the factors
that will let it triumph over the Federation, it's to compare the two
civilisations as they are depicted in the canon, not whatever would make
it a fair fight.
This is ridiculous!
Big Steve wrote:
>
> OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
> strategy/tactical.
>
> It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple hundred
> star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
> Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
> Federation's. NO DEATH STARS AND SUPER "BLOW 'EM UP QUICK" WEAPONS!
>
> Time placing:
>
> Federation: One year after Dominion War. Military buildup to prevent
> another invasion from the GQ and to keep the Romulans in line has the
> Fed fleet at approx. 10,000 starships. Defiants are now somewhat
> common, and the Sovereign II-class is the dominant Federation
> battleship. Excelsior IIIs, Ambassador IIs, Akiras, and Galaxy IIs are
> the other major capital ships.
>
> Empire: Expeditionary Force has about 10,000 warships, including 100
> ISDs and ten ISDIIs, with two Executor-class SSDs as command vessels.
>
> Ship comparisons (basically, if ships are "equal" on this scale a
> tactical confrontation will be decided by tactics and the abilities of
> the crew):
>
> 1 ISD = 1 Galaxy II
>
> 1 ISDII = 1 Sovereign II
>
> 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
>
> 1 Tie Advanced = 1 Miranda or three Peregrines (or 1 Valkyrie, if you
> want to count those kickass fighters in the soon-to-be-released
> PlayStation game Star Trek: Invasion)
>
> The SSDs will take a fleet to destroy straight up because of their
> impressive weaponry and fighter compliment. However, an ROTJ-like event
> can still destroy them.
>
> Also, hyperdrive is roughly equal to warp. Why? Because I have used my
> powers as the God of Fanfic to make it that way! So THERE! :-p j/k
> No, really, hyperdrive and warp are equal.
>
> We will assume that Imperial and Federation ground forces are competent.
> <begins snickering>
>
> LET THE PLANNING BEGIN!!!!!!
> ----------------------------
Big Steve
> Then the Empire wins, with superior tech. I don't care about your 'No Tech'
> thing. Its way too important to ignore, you fantasist.
>
> Rob
I'm so sorry if you want don't want to debate strategy and tactics.
Don't read this then.
And I'M a fantasist for wanting to have a debate based on strategy and
tactics? Aren't we all "fantasists" for even DISCUSSING this matter?
What's so wrong with the fixed tech levels anyway? A little variation
never hurt anyone. If anything, it will make the Empire earn their
victory through thinking. They'd better be calling Thrawn......
--------------------------------
How do you know if you've been in a real 'Mech battle? You walk out of
it low on ammo, with a limp, and 5% armor remaining on each part of your
torso.
Natasha Kerensky: The nastiest badass to ever pilot a 'Mech
Remember thy sacred commandments, MechWarriors:
'Mechs haveth the right of way on the battlefield: if an enemy tank or
infantryman getteth in the way, crusheth him under thy mighty foot of
death.
It is said that a house divided cannot standeth. Neither can a 'Mech
with a leg blown off.
Big Steve
>
> What's this 'enhanced industrial capability'? You mean 'reduced
> industrial capability' surely? I have never seen the Feds construct
> anything like an SSD in a few months (maybe a year) and a full-blown
> DS in a year or two.
Yeah, but the Empire had the resources of an entire galaxy for that.
The Feds don't. The enhanced industrial capability is to help the
Empire with a mere 200 systems.
> HUH!? I suppose you have to do that, 'cause hyperdrive gives the Imps
> a MAJOR strategic advantage. Even 'equalised', the Imperial ability to
> strike anywhere with (virtually) no forewarning with a concentrated
> force still means the Feds eventually lose because the Imps will wipe
> out the Fed resource base in no time, while being able to respond to
> Fed fleet movements, though not as fast as 'actual' hyperspace
> velocities would allow.
I assume you will cover this in your strategy/tactics planning, and I
leave it to Trek supporters to refute it with their own counter.
>
> You would also have to make the rule that the Imps are not allowed
> planetary shields because that renders their resource base virtually
> immune to destruction.
>
Not if they have EQUAL tech, because Fed ships could penetrate planetary
shields that way.
> Furthermore, you would have to make the rule that SSD's are not
> allowed to bombard planets, because that effectively means the Imps
> have three 'fleets' for strategic deployment:- the conventional
> ships, two SSD's (which are each equivalent to a Fed 'fleet'.
>
Yeah, I agree with that. Good point.
> >
>
> LOL!
>
> What Fed ground forces?
The mythical Federation Marine Corps, for one. Besides, Dominion War
eps indicate that the Feds DO have ground troops.
>
> In any case, you would have to make the rule that the Imps are not
> allowed mechanised support, etc.
The Federation seems to have mechanized units (Hoppers). And
(supposedly) there is a mention in a VOY ep that the Klingons have
armored units.
>
> Boy, that sure is a lot of rules to give the Feds half a chance :-)
>
Merely leveling the tech playing field so that the Imperials can prove
they can OUTSMART the Federation instead of just beat them to death with
superior tech.
-------------------------------------------
Big Steve
tactics, not brute force supported by superior tech, OK?
--
Big Steve
>
> No, what this is is a farce.
>
> Warp and hyperdrive are NOT equal. The Federation does NOT have 10,000 starships.
> A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
>
> It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
I'm SO SORRY that you have such a small mind. Does all debate HAVE to
have you using tech? Why can't you meet the Federation on an equal
playing field and beat them that way? I don't know about you but that
victory would taste a lot sweeter if I were the Imperial commander.
Why don't you want to face the Federation on an equal basis? You can't
handle the thought of beating the Federation through superior tactics
and strategy? You HAVE to beat them with the club of superior
technology?
The point of this debate is a fresh prespective. Notice I made them
equal. This is for the benefit of fanatics *cough*Paul*cough* on the
Trek side as well as the SW side. As for the 10,000 ship number,
considering the fact that DS9 one time displayed a Dominion ship level
number of 20,000 ships (ref: Tacking Into The Wind), I feel I'm being
conservative.
I think the point is that a good commander will win no matter if he is
superior, equal, or even somewhat inferior to his adversary. The Empire
can still win, particuarly if they call in Thrawn. (I like Thrawn, and
I've never read a damned Timothy Zahn novel in my life!)
---------------
Strowbridge
> > No, what this is is a farce.
<SNIP!>
> I'm SO SORRY that you have such a small mind. Does all debate HAVE to
> have you using tech?
YES! Other wise it is NOT a SW vs ST debate.
C.S.Strowbridge
Big Steve
Kyle wrote:
>
> Except, you've changed so much it is no longer SW vs. ST. It's ST vs ST
> in SW clothes.
Really? The Imps still have their own tech, their own FTL systems,
their own tactical doctrines (no laughing here IXJac). The only
difference is that the tech is not an advantage.
>One of the key strategies for use by Imps is hyperdrive.
Which they still have. Just that it's slower.
> As for a pure strategy or tactics debate, that isn't possible.
We've done it on Spacebattles before.
> What we
> end up with is discussing the tactical and strategic abilities of the
> posters.
Which means that we actually have to THINK to develop countermeasures to
what everyone else says.
>Tech is key to strategy, part of Strategy is finding the best
> ways to use your equipment.
I never said you COULDN'T use equipment! I just have all sides being
able to hurt each other equally. The Imps can still microjump, the
Federation can warp strafe, they can develop countermeasures to each
other.....
> If you want to discuss tactics though just say, one ISD vs 2 Sovereign,
> 2 Akira's, and 3 Defiants, add the stipulation that no one can leave the
> star system and that the Federation has a colony on the 3rd planet, and
> the Empire on the 4th planet. Then debate who could destroy the others
> colony first.
>
Which is a plain old debate. I wanted to see you guys to something
unique, and intellectually challenging.
--
lordsh...@my-deja.com
Imperial Navy over to this extent, it is essentially no longer the
Imperial Navy.
In article <393DAA0B...@cfl.rr.com>,
Big Steve <wolfp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What's this 'enhanced industrial capability'? You mean 'reduced
> > industrial capability' surely? I have never seen the Feds construct
> > anything like an SSD in a few months (maybe a year) and a full-blown
> > DS in a year or two.
>
> Yeah, but the Empire had the resources of an entire galaxy for that.
> The Feds don't. The enhanced industrial capability is to help the
> Empire with a mere 200 systems.
>
> > HUH!? I suppose you have to do that, 'cause hyperdrive gives the
Imps
> > a MAJOR strategic advantage. Even 'equalised', the Imperial ability
to
> > strike anywhere with (virtually) no forewarning with a concentrated
> > force still means the Feds eventually lose because the Imps will
wipe
> > out the Fed resource base in no time, while being able to respond to
> > Fed fleet movements, though not as fast as 'actual' hyperspace
> > velocities would allow.
>
> I assume you will cover this in your strategy/tactics planning, and I
> leave it to Trek supporters to refute it with their own counter.
>
> >
> > You would also have to make the rule that the Imps are not allowed
> > planetary shields because that renders their resource base virtually
> > immune to destruction.
> >
>
> Not if they have EQUAL tech, because Fed ships could penetrate
planetary
> shields that way.
>
> > Furthermore, you would have to make the rule that SSD's are not
> > allowed to bombard planets, because that effectively means the Imps
> > have three 'fleets' for strategic deployment:- the conventional
> > ships, two SSD's (which are each equivalent to a Fed 'fleet'.
> >
>
> Yeah, I agree with that. Good point.
>
> > >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > What Fed ground forces?
>
> The mythical Federation Marine Corps, for one. Besides, Dominion War
> eps indicate that the Feds DO have ground troops.
>
> >
> > In any case, you would have to make the rule that the Imps are not
> > allowed mechanised support, etc.
>
> The Federation seems to have mechanized units (Hoppers). And
> (supposedly) there is a mention in a VOY ep that the Klingons have
> armored units.
> >
> > Boy, that sure is a lot of rules to give the Feds half a chance :-)
> >
>
> Merely leveling the tech playing field so that the Imperials can prove
> they can OUTSMART the Federation instead of just beat them to death
with
> superior tech.
> -------------------------------------------
> How do you know if you've been in a real 'Mech battle? You walk out
of
> it low on ammo, with a limp, and 5% armor remaining on each part of
your
> torso.
>
> Natasha Kerensky: The nastiest badass to ever pilot a 'Mech
>
> Remember thy sacred commandments, MechWarriors:
>
> 'Mechs haveth the right of way on the battlefield: if an enemy tank or
> infantryman getteth in the way, crusheth him under thy mighty foot of
> death.
> It is said that a house divided cannot standeth. Neither can a 'Mech
> with a leg blown off.
> Thou shalt remember the most important rule of all: Victory at all
> costs.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SyG
wrote:
>
>
>Kyle wrote:
>>
>> Except, you've changed so much it is no longer SW vs. ST. It's ST vs ST
>> in SW clothes.
>
>Really? The Imps still have their own tech, their own FTL systems,
>their own tactical doctrines (no laughing here IXJac). The only
>difference is that the tech is not an advantage.
>
>>One of the key strategies for use by Imps is hyperdrive.
>
>Which they still have. Just that it's slower.
>
>
but it's the shear speed of hyperdrive that makes it a key strategy.
By making it slower, you are robbing the Imps of what would be their
war winning ability.
Strowbridge
>
> Kyle wrote:
> > Except, you've changed so much it is no longer SW vs. ST. It's ST vs ST
> > in SW clothes.
>
> Really? The Imps still have their own tech, their own FTL systems,
> their own tactical doctrines (no laughing here IXJac). The only
> difference is that the tech is not an advantage.
In other words, 'To hell with reality!'
> >One of the key strategies for use by Imps is hyperdrive.
>
> Which they still have. Just that it's slower.
Then it's not the SW hyperdrive we've come to know.
> > As for a pure strategy or tactics debate, that isn't possible.
>
> We've done it on Spacebattles before.
If they're anything like this debate then it was a miserable failure.
> > What we end up with is discussing the tactical and strategic abilities
> > of the posters.
>
> Which means that we actually have to THINK to develop countermeasures to
> what everyone else says.
And it also means it is NOT ST vs SW. But Poster A versus Poster B.
> > Tech is key to strategy, part of Strategy is finding the best ways to
> > use your equipment.
>
> I never said you COULDN'T use equipment! I just have all sides being
> able to hurt each other equally.
Which is NOT true, yet you want it to be true for this debate.
> > If you want to discuss tactics though just say, one ISD vs 2 Sovereign,
> > 2 Akira's, and 3 Defiants, add the stipulation that no one can leave
> > the star system and that the Federation has a colony on the 3rd planet,
> > and the Empire on the 4th planet. Then debate who could destroy the
> > others colony first.
>
> Which is a plain old debate. I wanted to see you guys to something
> unique, and intellectually challenging.
No, you want on Off-Topic debate in On-Topic clothing.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> Big Steve wrote:
> This is alt.startrek.vs.starwars, not alt.startrek.vs.startrek. Go
> there, as your scenario is the Federation battling itself, not the
> Empire.
Also, this isn't alt.me.using.startrek.tech.vs.you.using.starwars.tech,
we debate EVERYTHING about the two universes. What WE would do to win
the war means NOTHING if the other side wouldn't use that tactic,
strategy, etc.
C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
>
> >
> > No, what this is is a farce.
> >
> > A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
> >
> > It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> > Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> > in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
>
> playing field and beat them that way? I don't know about you but that
> victory would taste a lot sweeter if I were the Imperial commander.
>
> Why don't you want to face the Federation on an equal basis? You can't
> handle the thought of beating the Federation through superior tactics
> and strategy? You HAVE to beat them with the club of superior
> technology?
>
> The point of this debate is a fresh prespective. Notice I made them
> equal. This is for the benefit of fanatics *cough*Paul*cough* on the
> Trek side as well as the SW side. As for the 10,000 ship number,
> considering the fact that DS9 one time displayed a Dominion ship level
> number of 20,000 ships (ref: Tacking Into The Wind), I feel I'm being
> conservative.
>
> I think the point is that a good commander will win no matter if he is
> superior, equal, or even somewhat inferior to his adversary. The Empire
> can still win, particuarly if they call in Thrawn. (I like Thrawn, and
> I've never read a damned Timothy Zahn novel in my life!)
This is alt.startrek.vs.starwars, not alt.startrek.vs.startrek. Go
there, as your scenario is the Federation battling itself, not the
Empire.
Graeme Dice
--
"Engineers think that equations approximate the real world.
Scientists think that the real world approximates equations.
Mathematicians are unable to make the connection."
Kynes
> > It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> > Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> > in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
>
> I'm SO SORRY that you have such a small mind. Does all debate HAVE to
> have you using tech?
This debate still uses technology -- you've just changed what that technology
does. Instead of hyperspace being speed Y, you've changed it to speed X. Why? To
cripple the Imperials so that you can fantasize about a situation where the Feds
might have a fighting chance.
Pathetic.
> Why can't you meet the Federation on an equal
> playing field and beat them that way?
Because the playing field isn't equal. Sorry, folks, but this ISN'T a fair fight.
That's why Trekkies are such retards -- they look at an obviously biased scenario
(a civilization which has been travelling the galaxy for 25,000 years vs. one
which has only had primitive FTL technology for a couple of centuries) and make
the wrong call.
> I don't know about you but that
> victory would taste a lot sweeter if I were the Imperial commander.
It doesn't matter. That's not reality, and I'm not interested in modifying the
scenario so the Feds can win.
> Why don't you want to face the Federation on an equal basis?
Because it's not equal. The Federation is weak and small. The Imperials are not.
Masturbating to a scenario where the Imperials are weak and small and the Feds are
big and mighty accomplishes nothing.
> The point of this debate is a fresh prespective. Notice I made them
> equal.
Which they aren't, so this debate is, as I said, a farce.
> As for the 10,000 ship number,
> considering the fact that DS9 one time displayed a Dominion ship level
> number of 20,000 ships (ref: Tacking Into The Wind), I feel I'm being
> conservative.
The number of Dominion ships has jack shit to do with the number of Federation
ships -- or didn't you notice that a three-race alliance against the Dominion was
STILL outnumbered?
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"Discussions which lack moral or normative assessments are rarely interesting."
- Emily Cuatto
Dalton
>
> >I don't care what the other guys think of you - you are one
> >fuckin' funny guy. Congrats, you've made an Archive entry for
> >making my ribs hurt :)
>
> Why thank you! I should note, however, that what I wrote was
> merely a short list . . .
I hesitate to think what a long list would do to my lungs.
--
Dalton
http://read.at/asvsfanfics
http://faq.at/asvsfuq
"They were in the wrong place at the wrong
time...naturally, they became heroes."
Dalton
>
> The point of THIS DEBATE is to see the Empire win through strategy and
> tactics, not brute force supported by superior tech, OK?
Fuck it, let's just stick Thrawn on a Sovereign-class starship and call
it a game.
Atomik Chicken
news:020e8514...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
>
> >
> >> > 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
> >> >
> >
> up all over
> >the Defiant. No exploding dashboards either, just a nice tank-
> sounding
> >exhaust.
>
> Well, since you referred to your automobile, I shall refer to
> mine. My secondary vehicle is a 1989 Plymouth Sundance, where
> all dorsal surfaces are covered in rust. Lateral surfaces are
> losing paint rapidly. However, the remaining shades of blue
> allow the vehicle to retain its name, the "Smurf Turd" (small
> blue piece of shit!).
>
Jeez, worse than my car (the Turdbird [its a thunderbird, but turdbird is
more accurate in this case], or the Putzmobile [me being the Putz]). My car
actually grew a good deal of mold on the interior one summer.
Dalton
My car still smells vaguely like beer and pot from Friday night with
friends of mine.
Dalton
[snip]
> When I was changing out the tail lights, I observed that there
> was a rather large wasp nest located within a gap between the
> seam of the rear fender and the tail light. I counted four
> wasps present, and I presume they are still there. Between the
> funky outward appearance of the vehicle (rust, exposed primer,
> melting clearcoat) and the wasps, I figure my vehicle has one of
> the greatest theft-deterrent systems money cannot buy.
ROFLOL. This sounds like a Saturday Night Live fake commercial.
Atomik Chicken
news:393DF897...@nospam.erols.com...
> Atomik Chicken wrote:
> >
> > Guardian2000 <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote in
message
> > news:020e8514...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> > 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >My 1962 Lancer with the 225 slant 6 and pushbutton trans mops
> > > up all over
> > > >the Defiant. No exploding dashboards either, just a nice tank-
> > > sounding
> > > >exhaust.
> > >
> > > Well, since you referred to your automobile, I shall refer to
> > > mine. My secondary vehicle is a 1989 Plymouth Sundance, where
> > > all dorsal surfaces are covered in rust. Lateral surfaces are
> > > losing paint rapidly. However, the remaining shades of blue
> > > allow the vehicle to retain its name, the "Smurf Turd" (small
> > > blue piece of shit!).
> > >
> > [snip funny stuff]
> >
> > Jeez, worse than my car (the Turdbird [its a thunderbird, but turdbird
is
> > more accurate in this case], or the Putzmobile [me being the Putz]). My
car
> > actually grew a good deal of mold on the interior one summer.
>
> My car still smells vaguely like beer and pot from Friday night with
> friends of mine.
>
Jeez, better hope ya don't get pulled over by a gung-ho traffic cop : )
Guardian2000
summer."
Oh, I had thriving ecosystems on and in my vehicle, though I
have been environmentally unfriendly lately:
It was once the location of an ant colony, though they finally
moved away when they realized that, while a mobile home base had
certain advantages, it was outweighed by other factors.
Several spiders apparently call the vehicle home. When bleeding
the brakes recently to restore the Smurf Turd to marginally safe
mobility, I found a number of spider webs at various points
along the undercarriage of the vehicle, and on the radio antenna
and luggage rack. However, I presume that they have left. The
last time I saw any evidence of spiders was yesterday, when a
lone spider appeared to be huddling in fear in my backseat as
the vehicle shuddered and shimmeyed its way back to my apartment.
Because I often leave my windows down, mosquitoes often inhabit
the vehicle at night.
Also, the local stray cats (which seem to have migrated from the
nearby campus) have been observed leaving the vehicle in the
morning. Fortunately, they seem not to have left me any little
brown presents, though I did think I caught an odor of cat piss
at some point. However, that could have been the odor from any
of the other odd-smelling organisms in the vehicle.
The floorboard upholstery at the back seats appears to harbor
some peculiar lifeform that eats paper. I say this because of
the green color of the (originally) grey carpet, and the fact
that a nearby phonebook is apparently being consumed by the
greenish whatever.
Several sorts of semi-viscous goo, presumably alive, have
assumed command of the area beneath my cupholders, the area
within my ashtray, the area of the little change slot, et
cetera. They are growing.
When the vehicle was immobilized, flies were observed exiting
the tailpipe. I do not know, and probably do not want to know,
what the flies were doing up there, or what they'd found that
they considered so appealing.
Something lived and died in an open and mostly empty Coca-Cola
bottle that was lying on the backseat. I say its dead because
the remaining liquid is gone and the peculiar whatever that
inhabited the bottle is an odd white color, and the structure of
it appears to be collapsing in on itself.
The wooden stick I use to hold up the tailgate when open appears
to have some sort of lifeform growing on it, and may have
termites.
When I was changing out the tail lights, I observed that there
was a rather large wasp nest located within a gap between the
seam of the rear fender and the tail light. I counted four
wasps present, and I presume they are still there. Between the
funky outward appearance of the vehicle (rust, exposed primer,
melting clearcoat) and the wasps, I figure my vehicle has one of
the greatest theft-deterrent systems money cannot buy.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Atomik Chicken
Quick, find some Jusuits!
The spirit of Christ compells you, the spirit of Christ compells you!
: )
Guardian2000 <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:189ffd0e...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
Dalton
>
> Dalton <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote in message
> news:393DF897...@nospam.erols.com...
> > Atomik Chicken wrote:
> > >
> message
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> > 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
> > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > >My 1962 Lancer with the 225 slant 6 and pushbutton trans mops
> > > > up all over
> > > > >the Defiant. No exploding dashboards either, just a nice tank-
> > > > sounding
> > > > >exhaust.
> > > >
> > > > Well, since you referred to your automobile, I shall refer to
> > > > mine. My secondary vehicle is a 1989 Plymouth Sundance, where
> > > > all dorsal surfaces are covered in rust. Lateral surfaces are
> > > > losing paint rapidly. However, the remaining shades of blue
> > > > allow the vehicle to retain its name, the "Smurf Turd" (small
> > > > blue piece of shit!).
> > > >
> > > [snip funny stuff]
> > >
> > > Jeez, worse than my car (the Turdbird [its a thunderbird, but turdbird
> is
> car
> > > actually grew a good deal of mold on the interior one summer.
> >
> > friends of mine.
> >
>
> Jeez, better hope ya don't get pulled over by a gung-ho traffic cop : )
I did, once :) Got off with a warning; my lights weren't on.
Atomik Chicken
> Guardian2000 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > When I was changing out the tail lights, I observed that there
> > was a rather large wasp nest located within a gap between the
> > seam of the rear fender and the tail light. I counted four
> > wasps present, and I presume they are still there. Between the
> > funky outward appearance of the vehicle (rust, exposed primer,
> > melting clearcoat) and the wasps, I figure my vehicle has one of
> > the greatest theft-deterrent systems money cannot buy.
>
Yeah, didn't they do one of a luxory (sp?) car that looked like an old
abandoned car or something like that?
Big Steve
>
> This debate still uses technology -- you've just changed what that technology
> does. Instead of hyperspace being speed Y, you've changed it to speed X. Why? To
> cripple the Imperials so that you can fantasize about a situation where the Feds
> might have a fighting chance.
>
> Pathetic.
>
How is that pathetic? Because you will actually have to THINK about how
to win against an equal adversary instead of using the club and brute
force that is Mike Wong and the ASVS FAQ?
And I didn't equalize the two to give the Federation a chance: I did it
to inject new life into an old debate. To see who would rise to the
challenge or simply complain about it. Pity you aren't one of those who
are rising.
> Because the playing field isn't equal. Sorry, folks, but this ISN'T a fair fight.
> That's why Trekkies are such retards -- they look at an obviously biased scenario
> (a civilization which has been travelling the galaxy for 25,000 years vs. one
> which has only had primitive FTL technology for a couple of centuries) and make
> the wrong call.
I said nothing about the normal situation between the Empire and
Federation. I know the Empire would ground the Federation into powder
in a normal situation, but in those situations, a chimp could be the
admiral commanding the Empire and would still win. I want to see you
ASVS Warsies earn your victory by thinking up countermeasures and
campaigns against the Federation.
>
> It doesn't matter. That's not reality, and I'm not interested in modifying the
> scenario so the Feds can win.
Um, HELLO: NONE of this is reality. The scenario can be changed as we
see fit, to open up new avenues of debate and thought. "Reality" is
what WE decide it is.
>
> > Why don't you want to face the Federation on an equal basis?
>
> Because it's not equal. The Federation is weak and small. The Imperials are not.
> Masturbating to a scenario where the Imperials are weak and small and the Feds are
> big and mighty accomplishes nothing.
And if I had done that, you would be right. But I did NOT make the
Imperials weak and small and the Feds big and mighty. I made them
equal. That is the key difference. Stop misinterpreting everything.
>
> > The point of this debate is a fresh prespective. Notice I made them
> > equal.
>
> Which they aren't, so this debate is, as I said, a farce.
I know many Trekkies and Trekkers who might disagree with you. They are
equal in this debate, which ISN'T a farce. It has been done on
Spacebattles in another form, and it was highly successful.
>
> > As for the 10,000 ship number,
> > considering the fact that DS9 one time displayed a Dominion ship level
> > number of 20,000 ships (ref: Tacking Into The Wind), I feel I'm being
> > conservative.
>
> The number of Dominion ships has jack shit to do with the number of Federation
> ships -- or didn't you notice that a three-race alliance against the Dominion was
> STILL outnumbered?
That counted Dominion ships on ONE FRONT.
And the Federation Alliance equaled the Dominion in ships. The Dominion
was losing until the Breen joined, and after the Federation Alliance
developed countermeasures to the energy dampening weapon, the Dominion
was once again in the weaker position.
You know what I find pathetic? YOU. You either don't have the
intelligence to come up with a campaign of conquest, or you don't like
the thought of not crushing your opponents. You are so used to victory
through the work of individuals such as Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong that
you refuse to accept any scenario that does not fit inside your idea of
reality. God help this NG if the other Warsies of ASVS are as ossified
and inflexible in their thinking as you are.
-- -----------------------------------
Matthew Hyde
> >
> > No, what this is is a farce.
> >
> > Warp and hyperdrive are NOT equal. The Federation does NOT have 10,000 starships.
> > A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
> >
> > It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> > Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> > in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
> I'm SO SORRY that you have such a small mind. Does all debate HAVE to
> have you using tech? Why can't you meet the Federation on an equal
> playing field and beat them that way? I don't know about you but that
> victory would taste a lot sweeter if I were the Imperial commander.
> Why don't you want to face the Federation on an equal basis? You can't
> handle the thought of beating the Federation through superior tactics
> and strategy? You HAVE to beat them with the club of superior
> technology?
that IS equal. the Imps bring their toys, the Feds bring theirs. Sounds
fair to me. You may not like watching the Seahawks slaughter the Huskies,
but it would be a fair game.
--
Matt Hyde
Math Lab Consultant
Intellectuals always hope for the best. It's called cynicism.
--Mark Helprin
Robert Williams
>> What Fed ground forces?
>
>The mythical Federation Marine Corps, for one. Besides, Dominion War
>eps indicate that the Feds DO have ground troops.
>
They've never been called marines, but the federation does have some sort of
lightly equipped groundforce.
>>
>> In any case, you would have to make the rule that the Imps are not
>> allowed mechanised support, etc.
>
>The Federation seems to have mechanized units (Hoppers).
Only a transport vehicle. They don't have any walkers, speeders, etc.
Rob
Robert Williams
Big Steve wrote in message <393DA5AC...@cfl.rr.com>...
>>
>> Then the Empire wins, with superior tech. I don't care about your 'No Tech'
>> thing. Its way too important to ignore, you fantasist.
>>
>> Rob
>
>I'm so sorry if you want don't want to debate strategy and tactics.
>Don't read this then.
>
>And I'M a fantasist for wanting to have a debate based on strategy and
>tactics? Aren't we all "fantasists" for even DISCUSSING this matter?
>
No, I do, but tech just plays such an important part.
Rykit
such as TL power vs phaser power, we'll just make them equal
hyperdrive vs warp, it has been conceted more or less that HS is
faster then warp, how much is in speculation, so we'll make HS
2X as fast
Warp strafing, still under debate not allowed as are HS micro
jumps
Long range of phasers, under debate phaser range is now the same
as TL as is the speed
Both culture's sheilds block eath other's weapons equally well
industrial capibility is equal, the imps having to set up shop
in fed territory has deminished their capibility
strength of Pr torps, Ph torps are only 2X as strong as Pr torps
both move at the same speeds
All tech of one group hurts the other group as it was designed.
Both have FTL sensors roughly equal. Empire has Hs sensors as
well fed does not.
Cultural resirictions
The empire can act as it has been known to, being in a foreign
universe they can destroy as the see fit.
The fed must act as it is known to (no section 31 random acts of
genocide, ect), they much help other fed worlds under attack.
And they will not attack first, they will try to settel this
matter peacefully
Now before you all tell me to shut up, try to think about this
for a while. Invent some strategies or tactics. Don't you ever
get tired of just going SW has better tech they will win? Like
you told me when I first got here about a year ago just about
every major point has already been figured out. We know who
would win, yet you continue to debate on less and less
meaningful points.
For once try to actually invent something instead of just
spitting out facts and data. You have been presented with a
challenge, I'm actually suprised not a one of you even attempted
to meet this challenge. Has the debate become that borring, or
do you just prefer to flame people than debate?
Look over the restrictions I or Steve set. There are ways for
eithor side to win. Now try to make this interesting.
Rykit
Chuck
"Rykit" <ryan_kitch...@groton.pfizer.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:207258fa...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> Now before you all tell me to shut up, try to think about this
> for a while. Invent some strategies or tactics. Don't you ever
> get tired of just going SW has better tech they will win? Like
> you told me when I first got here about a year ago just about
> every major point has already been figured out. We know who
> would win, yet you continue to debate on less and less
> meaningful points.
> For once try to actually invent something instead of just
> spitting out facts and data. You have been presented with a
> challenge, I'm actually suprised not a one of you even attempted
> to meet this challenge. Has the debate become that borring, or
> do you just prefer to flame people than debate?
>
> Look over the restrictions I or Steve set. There are ways for
> eithor side to win. Now try to make this interesting.
I do this all the time. I call it "fanfiction".
--
Chuck
http://www.sfdebris.com
Kynes
> > This debate still uses technology -- you've just changed what that technology
> > does. Instead of hyperspace being speed Y, you've changed it to speed X. Why? To
> > cripple the Imperials so that you can fantasize about a situation where the Feds
> > might have a fighting chance.
> >
> > Pathetic.
>
> How is that pathetic? Because you will actually have to THINK about how
> to win against an equal adversary instead of using the club and brute
> force that is Mike Wong and the ASVS FAQ?
No, because you've invented two fictional adversaries and named them "Empire" and
"Federation." Here's another fun scenario: the two are going to war in the 20th
century. The Federation will be exactly like the United States. The Empire will be
exactly like Russia.
Who will win?!!? (Ha, this will show those pro-SW bastards!)
> And I didn't equalize the two to give the Federation a chance: I did it
> to inject new life into an old debate. To see who would rise to the
> challenge or simply complain about it. Pity you aren't one of those who
> are rising.
Nobody's "rising." Everyone is pointing out what a moron you are.
> > > The point of this debate is a fresh prespective. Notice I made them
> > > equal.
> >
> > Which they aren't, so this debate is, as I said, a farce.
>
> I know many Trekkies and Trekkers who might disagree with you.
Oh no! A bunch of pasty-faced geeks who sit inside all day masturbating to their scale
models of Klingon battleships don't agree with me?! Where DID I leave that bottle of
cyanide?
We already have pathetic Trekkie losers here on ASVS who don't agree with me.
Guardian2000 is a good example of just such an agenitalial wonder. Guess how much it
bothers me?
> It has been done on Spacebattles in another form, and it was highly successful.
Oh, wow. A bunch of pussified Trekkie idiots pulled it off, so it must be great!
> > The number of Dominion ships has jack shit to do with the number of Federation
> > ships -- or didn't you notice that a three-race alliance against the Dominion was
> > STILL outnumbered?
>
> That counted Dominion ships on ONE FRONT.
This has absolutely zero to do with the size of the Federation.
> You know what I find pathetic? YOU.
Oh, rats. And me without my hanky!
> You either don't have the
> intelligence to come up with a campaign of conquest
More like I don't have the patience to bat down every new Trekkie auto-erotic fantasy
about some bizarre way that their beloved Feddie heroes could win against the mean
old Galactic Empire after all.
This reminds me of that stupid argument that Elim proposed -- the one where it was a
Jedi v. Picard, except Picard got more equipment than a Federation starship which
allowed him to sort of counter the Jedi's powers. It was ridiculous, just like this.
> or you don't like
> the thought of not crushing your opponents.
You'll pardon me if I've grown to enjoy victory. You might try it one day.
> God help this NG if the other Warsies of ASVS are as ossified
> and inflexible in their thinking as you are.
I believe any divine beings turned their back on the newsgroup sometime around "[OT]
God is a Homo".
Ashen-Shugar
>
>
>>
>> What's this 'enhanced industrial capability'? You mean 'reduced
>> industrial capability' surely? I have never seen the Feds construct
>> anything like an SSD in a few months (maybe a year) and a full-blown
>> DS in a year or two.
>
>Yeah, but the Empire had the resources of an entire galaxy for that.
>The Feds don't. The enhanced industrial capability is to help the
>Empire with a mere 200 systems.
>
having the resources means *squat* if you can't do anything with it.
Leonardo Da Vinci had an entire planet to draw upon and couldn't
reconstruct the USS Nimitz is he made it his life's work.
>
>
>> HUH!? I suppose you have to do that, 'cause hyperdrive gives the Imps
>> a MAJOR strategic advantage. Even 'equalised', the Imperial ability to
>> strike anywhere with (virtually) no forewarning with a concentrated
>> force still means the Feds eventually lose because the Imps will wipe
>> out the Fed resource base in no time, while being able to respond to
>> Fed fleet movements, though not as fast as 'actual' hyperspace
>> velocities would allow.
>
>I assume you will cover this in your strategy/tactics planning, and I
>leave it to Trek supporters to refute it with their own counter.
I thought I did ... seen no counter yet. Anyway, we can possibly
pursue this further on spacebattles. I saw your post their. My name on
SB is MichaelJ. Also, if an ISD=GCS then what about the six squadrons
of fighters carried by the ISD? Is that included, or does that swing
it in the direction of the ISD?
>
>
>>
>> You would also have to make the rule that the Imps are not allowed
>> planetary shields because that renders their resource base virtually
>> immune to destruction.
>>
>
>Not if they have EQUAL tech, because Fed ships could penetrate planetary
>shields that way.
Sorry Steve, but that's plain silly. If Vader's squadron (including an
SSD) couldn't penetrate the Hoth shield, and the entire Fed fleet
according to your own rules has LESS firepower than an SSD, then how
in heck is it going to overcome a theatre shield, let alone a
full-blown planetary shield.
>
>
>> Furthermore, you would have to make the rule that SSD's are not
>> allowed to bombard planets, because that effectively means the Imps
>> have three 'fleets' for strategic deployment:- the conventional
>> ships, two SSD's (which are each equivalent to a Fed 'fleet'.
>>
>
>Yeah, I agree with that. Good point.
>
>
>> >
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> What Fed ground forces?
>
>The mythical Federation Marine Corps, for one. Besides, Dominion War
>eps indicate that the Feds DO have ground troops.
>
>>
>> In any case, you would have to make the rule that the Imps are not
>> allowed mechanised support, etc.
>
>The Federation seems to have mechanized units (Hoppers). And
>(supposedly) there is a mention in a VOY ep that the Klingons have
>armored units.
>>
>> Boy, that sure is a lot of rules to give the Feds half a chance :-)
>>
>
>Merely leveling the tech playing field so that the Imperials can prove
>they can OUTSMART the Federation instead of just beat them to death with
>superior tech.
>-------------------------------------------
>How do you know if you've been in a real 'Mech battle? You walk out of
>it low on ammo, with a limp, and 5% armor remaining on each part of your
>torso.
>
>Natasha Kerensky: The nastiest badass to ever pilot a 'Mech
>
>Remember thy sacred commandments, MechWarriors:
>
>'Mechs haveth the right of way on the battlefield: if an enemy tank or
>infantryman getteth in the way, crusheth him under thy mighty foot of
>death.
>It is said that a house divided cannot standeth. Neither can a 'Mech
>with a leg blown off.
>Thou shalt remember the most important rule of all: Victory at all
>costs.
------------------
Ashen-Shugar
------------------
Last of the Dragon Lords,
Greatest of the Valheru.
M.I.C.H.A.E.L.: Mechanical Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Assassination and Efficient Learning
bjorn_...@my-deja.com
> ROFLOL. This sounds like a Saturday Night Live fake commercial.
>
> --
> Dalton
Rob, you HAVE to add this!
--
Björn
"Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"Fuckin' A!"
Dalton
>
> Dalton <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote in message
> news:393E0362...@nospam.erols.com...
> > Guardian2000 wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > When I was changing out the tail lights, I observed that there
> > > was a rather large wasp nest located within a gap between the
> > > seam of the rear fender and the tail light. I counted four
> > > wasps present, and I presume they are still there. Between the
> > > funky outward appearance of the vehicle (rust, exposed primer,
> > > melting clearcoat) and the wasps, I figure my vehicle has one of
> > > the greatest theft-deterrent systems money cannot buy.
> >
>
> abandoned car or something like that?
Yeah, that one! :)
Colin Brian Witz
>
> Hmm, not right now. We'll stick with my rules for now. :-)
>
> ------------------------
> How do you know if you've been in a real 'Mech battle? You walk out of
> it low on ammo, with a limp, and 5% armor remaining on each part of your
> torso.
>
> Natasha Kerensky: The nastiest badass to ever pilot a 'Mech
>
> Remember thy sacred commandments, MechWarriors:
>
> the consequences.
> Killeth the meat, spareth the metal
> 'Mechs haveth the right of way on the battlefield: if an enemy tank or
> infantryman getteth in the way, crusheth him under thy mighty foot of
> death.
> It is said that a house divided cannot standeth. Neither can a 'Mech
> with a leg blown off.
> If thou hath too many energy weapons, thou shalt never press the Alpha
> Strike key unless thou wishes to explode and kill everything within 200
> meters.
> Thou shalt remember the most important rule of all: Victory at all
> costs.
You forgot my variant, I can't pilot worth shizen, I have mastered ERPPC's
grouped and zoom keys.
"Oswald was a wuss"-The Usual Suspects
Dalton
>
> > ROFLOL. This sounds like a Saturday Night Live fake commercial.
> >
> > Dalton
>
> Rob, you HAVE to add this!
Believe me, I am!
sea...@my-deja.com
Big Steve <wolfp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
> strategy/tactical.
>
> It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple
hundred
> star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
> Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
> Federation's. NO DEATH STARS AND SUPER "BLOW 'EM UP QUICK" WEAPONS!
>
> Time placing:
>
> Federation: One year after Dominion War. Military buildup to prevent
> another invasion from the GQ and to keep the Romulans in line has the
> Fed fleet at approx. 10,000 starships. Defiants are now somewhat
> common, and the Sovereign II-class is the dominant Federation
> battleship. Excelsior IIIs, Ambassador IIs, Akiras, and Galaxy IIs
are
> the other major capital ships.
Sovvie 2s? Also, 10,000 ships sounds a bit large, especially for
one year. I generally concede about 4,000 ships as a high figure.
>
> Empire: Expeditionary Force has about 10,000 warships, including 100
> ISDs and ten ISDIIs, with two Executor-class SSDs as command vessels.
Oh, Jesus...
The two Executors alone could probably take on most of the Federation
fleet, and I'm decidedly pro-Trek, so that _means_ something...
The Imperators are more vulnerable, but still extremely tough ships.
It'd take a fleet of starships to defeat only one. 100, if used
properly, could bring the Federation down in a few hours without
ever even engaging Starfleet (see stardestroyer.net for similar
ideas).
>
> Ship comparisons (basically, if ships are "equal" on this scale a
> tactical confrontation will be decided by tactics and the abilities of
> the crew):
>
> 1 ISD = 1 Galaxy II
>
> 1 ISDII = 1 Sovereign II
>
> 1 Lancer = 1 Defiant
>
> 1 Tie Advanced = 1 Miranda or three Peregrines (or 1 Valkyrie, if you
> want to count those kickass fighters in the soon-to-be-released
> PlayStation game Star Trek: Invasion)
Okay, couple of grievances.
One, I actually rate Defiant as perhaps THE most dangerous ship
to the Imperials because of its small size and miniaturized, heavy
arsenal.
As for a TIE Advanced equalling a 245m long starship...nah : )
I can't go with that. A TIE Advanced, IMHO, wouldn't be
even a near match for an unshielded Peregrine. (I've posted
here about TIEs and X-Wings vs. Peregrines {which are actually
misnamed} before--won't go into all of that again.)
>
> The SSDs will take a fleet to destroy straight up because of their
> impressive weaponry and fighter compliment. However, an ROTJ-like
event
> can still destroy them.
Remember, however, that almost a dozen ships with ISD-comparable
firepower pounded its shields in one section; only then did the
A-Wing crash and knock out the bridge. And many believe had
the Executor not hit the DS, it would've kept on fighting after
a secondary bridge took over.
>
> Also, hyperdrive is roughly equal to warp. Why? Because I have used
my
> powers as the God of Fanfic to make it that way! So THERE! :-p j/k
> No, really, hyperdrive and warp are equal.
Oh, hell. That changes everything...
So the capital ships are all equal save the Executor, and
no multi-million c hyperdrive advantage?
Hmm...
The Federation could win *this* scenario conceivably, since they did
something rather similar against the Dominion. Taking the hyperdrive
advantage away makes things different.
Will
Big Steve
Kynes wrote:
> =
> No, because you've invented two fictional adversaries and named them "Empire" and
> "Federation." Here's another fun scenario: the two are going to war in the 20th
> century. The Federation will be exactly like the United States. The Empire will be
> exactly like Russia.
>
> Who will win?!!? (Ha, this will show those pro-SW bastards!)
>
::rolls eyes:: If I had given them the same tech, you would be right.
If I had made them in each other's image, you would be right. But I
didn't. The Empire still has their tactics, the Federation has their.
The Empire can still achieve surprise by coming out of hyperspace right
on top of a Fed planet. The Empire still favors hammering opponents
into submission. The only difference is that we operate under the
assumption that their tech is equal.
BTW, I never said anything about doing this to "show those pro-SW
bastards". Stop being so damned defensive. Do you think EVERYTHING is
an attack on your Warsie population?
> Nobody's "rising." Everyone is pointing out what a moron you are.
So because I DARE to think differently from you, I'm a moron. LOL.
> Oh no! A bunch of pasty-faced geeks who sit inside all day masturbating to their scale
> models of Klingon battleships don't agree with me?! Where DID I leave that bottle of
> cyanide?
>
Ooh, flaming fans of another series just because you don't like them.
Very mature. But I think I like Mike Wong's insults better. More
intelligence behind them.
> We already have pathetic Trekkie losers here on ASVS who don't agree with me.
> Guardian2000 is a good example of just such an agenitalial wonder. Guess how much it
> bothers me?
>
Who cares?
> Oh, wow. A bunch of pussified Trekkie idiots pulled it off, so it must be great!
That goes to show you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when
it comes to Spacebattles! Trekkies are the minority! Spacebattles is
predominately B5 and SW, you ignorant, narrow-minded, inflexible
Neanderthal. The last debate like this was months ago involving the
Federation and Earth Alliance from B5, and it WAS successful. It was
also done mostly by B5 fans, not Trek fans.
>
> This has absolutely zero to do with the size of the Federation.
I never even said anything about the size of the Federation. Once again
you totally misinterpret what I'm saying. Either you're mutilating my
statements on purpose to be a jackass, or you're a fucking retard.
>
> Oh, rats. And me without my hanky!
::rolls eyes again::
>
>
> More like I don't have the patience to bat down every new Trekkie auto-erotic fantasy
> about some bizarre way that their beloved Feddie heroes could win against the mean
> old Galactic Empire after all.
Another misinterpretation of what I'm saying, I see. Tell me Kynes, is
this a chronic mental problem, or are you just showing your ass?
I NEVER said the Federation would win. I want to see you ASVS Warsies
show an ounce of original thinking ability and come up with a unique,
interesting way to conquer the Federation DESPITE these handicaps. All
I see is bitching.
>
> This reminds me of that stupid argument that Elim proposed -- the one where it was a
> Jedi v. Picard, except Picard got more equipment than a Federation starship which
> allowed him to sort of counter the Jedi's powers. It was ridiculous, just like this.
The situations are totally different. Trying to connect them just shows
how ignorant you are.
>
>
> You'll pardon me if I've grown to enjoy victory. You might try it one day.
That's your problem. You have become addicted to easy victory, and you
don't want to have to earn them. You're a spoiled brat, relatively
speaking.
>
>
> I believe any divine beings turned their back on the newsgroup sometime around "[OT]
> God is a Homo".
LOL
--
Chris O'Farrell
> Big Steve wrote:
> >
> > The point of THIS DEBATE is to see the Empire win through strategy and
> > tactics, not brute force supported by superior tech, OK?
>
> it a game.
Hell no. Thrawn could take down the whole damm AQ with nuthing but a mirinda
class targ-
...um destroyer as resources.
Jonathan Willis
> No, what this is is a farce.
Blasphemy he cried.
> Warp and hyperdrive are NOT equal.
Definately true.
> The Federation does NOT have 10,000 starships.
There is no evidence they specifically have 10,000 ships, but there is
no evidence that they don't either, unless you have something new to
add. A fleet of 10,000 fits with estimates from SoA, although its on the
high end.
> A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
Again, evidence.
> It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
<sarcasm> Well as long as you present your case so calmly and
rationally, not like one of these Trek idiots simple stating facts
without evidence... </sarcasm>
Matthew Hyde
> In article <393CA0CF...@cfl.rr.com>,
> Big Steve <wolfp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > OK, here are the rules: NO TECH DEBATING! This is strictly
> > strategy/tactical.
> >
> > It's in the Trek galaxy. The Empire has a foothold of a couple
> hundred
> > star systems, with enhanced industrial capability to keep up with the
> > Federation. In numbers, the Imperial fleet is roughly on par with the
> > Federation's. NO DEATH STARS AND SUPER "BLOW 'EM UP QUICK" WEAPONS!
> >
> > Time placing:
> >
> > Federation: One year after Dominion War. Military buildup to prevent
> > another invasion from the GQ and to keep the Romulans in line has the
> > Fed fleet at approx. 10,000 starships. Defiants are now somewhat
> > common, and the Sovereign II-class is the dominant Federation
> > battleship. Excelsior IIIs, Ambassador IIs, Akiras, and Galaxy IIs
> are
> > the other major capital ships.
> Sovvie 2s? Also, 10,000 ships sounds a bit large, especially for
> one year. I generally concede about 4,000 ships as a high figure.
> >
> > Empire: Expeditionary Force has about 10,000 warships, including 100
> > ISDs and ten ISDIIs, with two Executor-class SSDs as command vessels.
> Oh, Jesus...
.... Said the first Feddie captain to spot the new arrivals... As he pissed his pants... "Scottie! Beam
that up!"
--
Matt Hyde
Math Lab Consultant
Who is Matt Hyde? http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy
Strowbridge
>
> Kynes wrote:
> > No, because you've invented two fictional adversaries and named them
> > "Empire" and "Federation."
<SNIP!>
> > Nobody's "rising." Everyone is pointing out what a moron you are.
>
> So because I DARE to think differently from you, I'm a moron. LOL.
No, cause you think this is actually a SW vs ST debate your intelligence
is being questioned.
> But I think I like Mike Wong's insults better. More intelligence behind
> them.
Oh, he's good.
> > Oh, wow. A bunch of pussified Trekkie idiots pulled it off, so it must
> > be great!
>
> That goes to show you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when
> it comes to Spacebattles! Trekkies are the minority! Spacebattles is
> predominately B5 and SW, you ignorant, narrow-minded, inflexible
> Neanderthal. The last debate like this was months ago involving the
> Federation and Earth Alliance from B5, and it WAS successful. It was
> also done mostly by B5 fans, not Trek fans.
But it wasn't B5 vs ST. It was, 'How would you win if you were using
generic Sci-Fi in B5 and ST clothing.'
> I NEVER said the Federation would win. I want to see you ASVS Warsies
> show an ounce of original thinking ability and come up with a unique,
> interesting way to conquer the Federation DESPITE these handicaps. All
> I see is bitching.
Have you read the ASVS R&R? We worked hard to make sure EVERY aspect had
to be taken into account. This includes tech, personalities, SOP, etc.
Cause we know that by removing just one of these it is no longer a SW vs
ST debate.
This is why you are being attacked.
> > This reminds me of that stupid argument that Elim proposed -- the one
> > where it was a Jedi v. Picard, except Picard got more equipment than a
> > Federation starship which allowed him to sort of counter the Jedi's
> > powers. It was ridiculous, just like this.
>
> The situations are totally different. Trying to connect them just shows
> how ignorant you are.
Compare and Contrast the two, for I see definite similarities.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jerry
known for fighting against numerically and technologically SUPERIOR forces
(on the technologically superior I am of course referring to when he first
encountered the Empire, and utterly defeated their forces in small,
well-underarmed, barely combat capable warships) using brilliant tactics to
win the day. If he was limited to Imperial technology of even the LOWEST
order and one capital ship he would probably still defeat the Federation and
probably without a scratch. Now if it were the average Imperial commander
against say....a Federation commander with tactical and stategic brilliance
near Thrawn's level (yeah THAT'S realistic, the Federation has the tactical
brilliance of an average brick) then yeah, the Federation would have a damn
good chance at winning. BTW careful on use of the term Sovereign-class, BOTH
SW and ST have a Sovereign class, and you definately would not want to
confuse those two :)
Chris O'Farrell wrote in message
<393f5412$0$18143$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
Dalton
>
> Dalton <dalto...@nospam.erols.com> wrote in message
> news:393DEB86...@nospam.erols.com...
> > Big Steve wrote:
> > >
> > > The point of THIS DEBATE is to see the Empire win through strategy and
> > > tactics, not brute force supported by superior tech, OK?
> >
> > Fuck it, let's just stick Thrawn on a Sovereign-class starship and call
> > it a game.
>
> Hell no. Thrawn could take down the whole damm AQ with nuthing but a mirinda
> class targ-
> ...um destroyer as resources.
LOL!
Dalton
>
> I agree if it's Thrawn in the picture it makes it a whole new game. He's
> known for fighting against numerically and technologically SUPERIOR forces
> (on the technologically superior I am of course referring to when he first
> encountered the Empire, and utterly defeated their forces in small,
> well-underarmed, barely combat capable warships) using brilliant tactics to
> win the day. If he was limited to Imperial technology of even the LOWEST
> order and one capital ship he would probably still defeat the Federation and
> probably without a scratch. Now if it were the average Imperial commander
> against say....a Federation commander with tactical and stategic brilliance
> near Thrawn's level (yeah THAT'S realistic, the Federation has the tactical
> brilliance of an average brick) then yeah, the Federation would have a damn
> good chance at winning. BTW careful on use of the term Sovereign-class, BOTH
> SW and ST have a Sovereign class, and you definately would not want to
> confuse those two :)
*GRIN*
Graeme Dice
>
> Kynes wrote:
>
> > No, what this is is a farce.
>
> Blasphemy he cried.
>
> > Warp and hyperdrive are NOT equal.
>
> Definately true.
>
> > The Federation does NOT have 10,000 starships.
>
> There is no evidence they specifically have 10,000 ships, but there is
> no evidence that they don't either, unless you have something new to
> add. A fleet of 10,000 fits with estimates from SoA, although its on the
> high end.
>
> > A GCS is nowhere near equal to an ISD-II.
>
> Again, evidence.
>
> > It must be really sad when you have to cripple your opponents to win. The
> > Imperials win anyway because reality kicks in, they hyperjump to every system
> > in the Federation and BDZ it, killing trillions and winning the war instantly.
>
> <sarcasm> Well as long as you present your case so calmly and
> rationally, not like one of these Trek idiots simple stating facts
> without evidence... </sarcasm>
Graeme Dice
--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Big Steve
Strowbridge wrote:
>
> No, cause you think this is actually a SW vs ST debate your intelligence
> is being questioned.
>
Really? Because I have put in the assumption that their tech is on an
equal level, BUT STILL HAS FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENT FROM
EACH OTHER, it's not a SW vs. ST debate anymore?
> > But I think I like Mike Wong's insults better. More intelligence behind
> > them.
>
> Oh, he's good.
Are you referring to me or MW? If MW, I agree. If me, thanks.
>
> > > Oh, wow. A bunch of pussified Trekkie idiots pulled it off, so it must
> > > be great!
> >
> > That goes to show you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when
> > it comes to Spacebattles! Trekkies are the minority! Spacebattles is
> > predominately B5 and SW, you ignorant, narrow-minded, inflexible
> > Neanderthal. The last debate like this was months ago involving the
> > Federation and Earth Alliance from B5, and it WAS successful. It was
> > also done mostly by B5 fans, not Trek fans.
>
> But it wasn't B5 vs ST. It was, 'How would you win if you were using
> generic Sci-Fi in B5 and ST clothing.'
How was it not B5? Earth Alliance still used hyperspace, Bureau 13, and
Psi Corps, and the Federation used Section 31 (in fact, the brunt of the
issue was about Clark pulling off a sneak attack on the Federation).
Besides, tech debating between B5 and ST almost always ended up in
draws, (until now), so there was a common assumption that their
capabilities were similar. Most of that debate centered on what I
wanted it to be here: tactics and strategy. Both sides even agreed the
Feds would win, the debate was how hard the victory would be.
That is the major POV problem here. You seem to be confusing tech with
capability. I am not saying their TECH is the same: I'm saying they
have similar CAPABILITIES. Hyperdrive is still different from warp
drive, turbolasers operate different from phasers. Stormtroopers still
fight with blasters while Feds use phaser rifles. The only thing is
that we assume that, in terms of starship firepower, defensive
capability, and FTL speed, they have similar capability instead of
superior capability for the Empire. THAT is what my idea was. Your
argument that it's a generic debate that cannot be termed "ST vs. SW"
seems to center around your belief that in making them equal, I'm making
them just like the other. Were Germany and the Soviet Union "just like
each other" in WWII? They had similar CAPABILITY in their firepower,
but different technology, tactics, and strategy (or lack thereof when
you count that Hitler was personally commanding the Germans).
>
> > I NEVER said the Federation would win. I want to see you ASVS Warsies
> > show an ounce of original thinking ability and come up with a unique,
> > interesting way to conquer the Federation DESPITE these handicaps. All
> > I see is bitching.
>
> Have you read the ASVS R&R? We worked hard to make sure EVERY aspect had
> to be taken into account. This includes tech, personalities, SOP, etc.
> Cause we know that by removing just one of these it is no longer a SW vs
> ST debate.
>
Reference above point.
> This is why you are being attacked.
I understand that.
>
> > > This reminds me of that stupid argument that Elim proposed -- the one
> > > where it was a Jedi v. Picard, except Picard got more equipment than a
> > > Federation starship which allowed him to sort of counter the Jedi's
> > > powers. It was ridiculous, just like this.
> >
> > The situations are totally different. Trying to connect them just shows
> > how ignorant you are.
>
> Compare and Contrast the two, for I see definite similarities.
>
Similarities if you think that I'm doing this to try to let the
Federation win. I see no way to give Picard the capability of a Jedi
without a) giving him a BattleMech or b) taking Mike Wong's fanfic into
account and giving him Jedi training. (BTW, did you read the final
chapter of MW's fanfic? That was a damned good ending.)
BTW, thank you for being reasonable. It seems some of your more rabid
members are incapable of that.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> > No, cause you think this is actually a SW vs ST debate your
> > intelligence is being questioned.
>
> Really? Because I have put in the assumption that their tech is on an
> equal level, BUT STILL HAS FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENT FROM
> EACH OTHER, it's not a SW vs. ST debate anymore?
If you change ANYTHING it isn't SW vs. ST. It's similar to SW vs. ST,
but it is not the same.
> BTW, thank you for being reasonable. It seems some of your more rabid
> members are incapable of that.
No prob.
C.S.Strowbridge
Big Steve
Strowbridge wrote:
>
>
> If you change ANYTHING it isn't SW vs. ST. It's similar to SW vs. ST,
> but it is not the same.
>
By your standards, no. That's the point of the exercise. To try
something new.
Besides, if you so wish, I could re-state it to say we're operating
under Trekkie.... nah, because most Trekkies think the Federation would
annihilate the Empire anyway. ::rolls eyes:
>
> No prob.
>
Around here, it seems that some have such a problem.