Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Empire (was Re: Federation vs. The Empire)

3 views
Skip to first unread message

bard

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

<snip>
> The simple fact is that the Empire would win.
> The Empire controles an ENTIRE GALAXY vs the Federation claim of having "explored under 19% of the galaxy."
<more snipping>
At the beginning of star wars, it says "long ago in a far away galaxy"
_far_away_galaxy_, not ours. The empire controls a different galaxy,
which could consist of only 2 solar systems. So making that comparison
really doesn't show anything at all.

~Bard
Nope, no sig!

Celes

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

>> The simple fact is that the Empire would win.
>> The Empire controles an ENTIRE GALAXY vs the Federation claim of having
>>"explored under 19% of the galaxy."

>At the beginning of star wars, it says "long ago in a far away galaxy"


>_far_away_galaxy_, not ours. The empire controls a different galaxy,
>which could consist of only 2 solar systems. So making that comparison
>really doesn't show anything at all.


Notice the key word "an" infront of "ENTIRE GALAXY." Not "the." I never
implied it was the Milky Way. Our galaxy is rather typical, so it stands to
reason that the Imperial Galaxy is like this one. It could be smaller, yes,
or it could be over a trillion stars. It's just more logical to assume that
hte Imperial Galaxy contains about 300 billion stars (like the Milky Way)

Eric Farrow

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

only two sol-systems what a boring Galicse. The posabily of more life wold
be cool on Star Wars. Federtion wold win ever heard of more than 100 spaches
in Federtion space.

Rich Handley

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

bard <ba...@stc.net> wrote:
>At the beginning of star wars, it says "long ago in a far away galaxy"

Or at least something close to that, anyway. :)


Sincerely,

Rich Handley (Card...@unix.asb.com)


James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

Celes wrote:
>
> >> The simple fact is that the Empire would win.
> >> The Empire controles an ENTIRE GALAXY vs the Federation claim of having
> >>"explored under 19% of the galaxy."
>
> >At the beginning of star wars, it says "long ago in a far away galaxy"
> >_far_away_galaxy_, not ours. The empire controls a different galaxy,
> >which could consist of only 2 solar systems. So making that comparison
> >really doesn't show anything at all.
>
> Notice the key word "an" infront of "ENTIRE GALAXY." Not "the." I never
> implied it was the Milky Way. Our galaxy is rather typical, so it stands to
> reason that the Imperial Galaxy is like this one. It could be smaller, yes,
> or it could be over a trillion stars. It's just more logical to assume that
> hte Imperial Galaxy contains about 300 billion stars (like the Milky Way)

According to Zhan's books, they do not actually control the entire
galaxy
anyway. He makes mention of both unknown and uncivilized regions of
the galaxy. All in all, I think that the Empires claim that they
controled
the entire galaxy is similar to how Alexander the great is claimed to
have ruled the world, ie he only ruled the parts that count. And Zhan's
books
are not the only ones that make mention of uncharted( so clearly not
controled) regions of the SW galaxy.

Actually if we are to beleive that one can cross the SW galaxy in a few
years
at worst, then since it is clear that it take life times to get to the
nearest
galaxy( or else why does the rebelion not place its leadership in
another
galaxy and run the rebelion from that relatively safe place?) that
means
that the SW galaxy is most likely a satellite galaxy of a "normal" sized
galaxy. This could easily imply that its size is not even 10K light
years
across.

And where is SW does it say that their galaxy is a typical galaxy
anyway?


--
buckysan

annapuma and unapumma in 98

44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC

Celes

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

>According to Zhan's books, they do not actually control the entire
>galaxy
>anyway. He makes mention of both unknown and uncivilized regions of
>the galaxy. All in all, I think that the Empires claim that they
>controled
>the entire galaxy is similar to how Alexander the great is claimed to
>have ruled the world, ie he only ruled the parts that count. And Zhan's
>books
>are not the only ones that make mention of uncharted( so clearly not
>controled) regions of the SW galaxy.

You can't rule billions of planets from one centeral government.
The Hapians and other government pay tribute to the Empire (or they are the
figure heads that keep the locals in line.

>Actually if we are to beleive that one can cross the SW galaxy in a few
>years
>at worst, then since it is clear that it take life times to get to the
>nearest
>galaxy( or else why does the rebelion not place its leadership in
>another
>galaxy and run the rebelion from that relatively safe place?) that
>means
>that the SW galaxy is most likely a satellite galaxy of a "normal" sized
>galaxy. This could easily imply that its size is not even 10K light
>years
>across.

No it couldn't. The Falcon can do 1,100,000 c (I posted the proof three
times in hte last two days, i don't want to ore you byt doing hte
calulations again)
It can cross the galaxy in 2 months, but it would still take YEARS to get to
another galaxy. It only has a few weeks of fuel onboard. ISDs can;t travel
as fast (only a few thousand c) So it would take them even longer.

You're like a schoolboy wondering why (since we went to the moon) we don't
go to another starsystem. He doesn't know how vast the distances are. YOU
don't know how vast the starsystems are. Remember at the end of ESB when
the yare outside the Galaxy, oaa the other galaxies look as some as stars
look form Earth.

Aking why the Alliance doesn't set op camp in another galaxy is liek asking
why we don't put NORAD on the moon of Io. Or why the Federation didn't set
up camp in the Delta Quadrant.

>And where is SW does it say that their galaxy is a typical galaxy
>anyway?

Why do you say it isn't?
In SW, they speak English, use meters, are human, need water and the same
types of food, uses the same time scale we do, ect. Doesn't it make sence
that the George Lucas didn't mean for the galaxieds to be diffrent sizes?

How do you know ST is set in THIS GALAXY from THIS EARTH? After all, Khan's
war in 1992 never came about, so it can;t be the same Earth. For all we
know, ST is set in a diffrent, galaaxy with a ONE parrele planet (Earth)
Maybe teh ST galaxy only has 5000 star sytems!!!! Maybe their light year is
only 4 feet!!!

We can argue thius 'tel our fingers fall off, but that doen't change the
fact that there is now way to prove the SW galaxy is any diffrent from ourt
galaxy (but like I said, there is evidence to prove that the ST galaxy is
diffrent from our galaxy)

Can we let this die and assume they are the same?

Jake Landrum

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to


bard wrote:

> <snip>


> > The simple fact is that the Empire would win.
> > The Empire controles an ENTIRE GALAXY vs the Federation claim of having "explored under 19% of the galaxy."

> <more snipping>


> At the beginning of star wars, it says "long ago in a far away galaxy"
> _far_away_galaxy_, not ours. The empire controls a different galaxy,
> which could consist of only 2 solar systems. So making that comparison
> really doesn't show anything at all.
>

> ~Bard
> Nope, no sig!


The Empire does not control the whole galaxy. Read Heir to the Empire. It shows that there are other
governments that control other parts of the galaxy. The Empire WANTS to control the whole galaxy, but only
controls a part of it.

Tyralak

James Watson

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

STARWARS ARE FAGGETS wrote:
>
> all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.

This message was posted from a Prodigy account.
I would appreciate if everyone who is offended by this message
please direct your comments to Prodigy directly.

If enough of us complain about this violation of
Prodigy's TOS, Usenet posting policies and just plain common
sense, perhaps Prodigy will take measures to correct this
unfortunate individual's actions.


--
wat...@iamerica.net (-o-)

STARWARS ARE FAGGETS

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

pw...@bellsouth.net

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to Britis...@suck.com

STARWARS ARE FAGGETS wrote:
>
> all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.


Um... isn't IQs of 70 and the word "nerd" a contradiction in terms?

Better to be an ugly nerd than a fugly idiot.

Oh... and FAGGET is spelled F-A-G-G-O-T.
Get an education.

"And you... have you ever even kissed a girl?"- William Shatner
"Get a life, people!"- William Shatner

MTFBWY,
Proudwolf

The Magicman

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

Celes schrieb in Nachricht <64j3cf$4iv$6...@shadow.skypoint.net>...

>How do you know ST is set in THIS GALAXY from THIS EARTH? After all,
Khan's
>war in 1992 never came about, so it can;t be the same Earth. For all we
>know, ST is set in a diffrent, galaaxy with a ONE parrele planet (Earth)

I don't think ST is an other galaxy but in an alternate universe like the
mirror universe
from TOS and DS9. Or perhaps the mirror univers is our realety???

>Maybe teh ST galaxy only has 5000 star sytems!!!! Maybe their light year
is
>only 4 feet!!!

And maybe McDonalds's burgers are alwayd fresh cooked....


Shallow Breathing

unread,
Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97
to

STARWARS ARE FAGGETS wrote:
>
> all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.

oh, and you look divorced
--
97.5% (please dont eat my ass)-acrid

Just Another Schmuck

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

I'm not offended but I will contact Prodigy anyway - I just like to to do
it. :) it makes me feel gooooood. :P... . .


Rich Handley wrote in message ...


>STARWARS ARE FAGGETS <ENG...@SMELLS.LIKE.RAT.DUNG!> wrote:
>>all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.
>
>

>Perhaps.... but we CAN spell "faggots" and "Star Wars," so it's okay.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Rich Handley (Card...@unix.asb.com)
>

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Celes wrote:
>
> >According to Zhan's books, they do not actually control the entire
> >galaxy
> >anyway. He makes mention of both unknown and uncivilized regions of
> >the galaxy. All in all, I think that the Empires claim that they
> >controled
> >the entire galaxy is similar to how Alexander the great is claimed to
> >have ruled the world, ie he only ruled the parts that count. And Zhan's
> >books
> >are not the only ones that make mention of uncharted( so clearly not
> >controled) regions of the SW galaxy.
>
> You can't rule billions of planets from one centeral government.
> The Hapians and other government pay tribute to the Empire (or they are the
> figure heads that keep the locals in line.

Small problem, Zhan mentions either unmapped or uncharted regions of
the galaxy. This is more than the empire just not having local control,
these are areas that have not even been explored. And if there are
other goverments that have in effect treaties with the empire, then
clearly the empire is even smaller than I had thought.

> >Actually if we are to beleive that one can cross the SW galaxy in a few
> >years
> >at worst, then since it is clear that it take life times to get to the
> >nearest
> >galaxy( or else why does the rebelion not place its leadership in
> >another
> >galaxy and run the rebelion from that relatively safe place?) that
> >means
> >that the SW galaxy is most likely a satellite galaxy of a "normal" sized
> >galaxy. This could easily imply that its size is not even 10K light
> >years
> >across.
>
> No it couldn't. The Falcon can do 1,100,000 c (I posted the proof three
> times in hte last two days, i don't want to ore you byt doing hte
> calulations again)

Why, it is inconsistent with the way hyperdrive numbers are described
anywhere else in SW. Or are we going to get into which "authroized"
and "offical" book is more "offical"? And anyway, where is the
statement
that Zhan's books are to be taken as techincal information, even when
they contradict things susch as the ship guide that says the smaller
the hyperdriver number the faster the ship?

> It can cross the galaxy in 2 months, but it would still take YEARS to get to
> another galaxy. It only has a few weeks of fuel onboard. ISDs can;t travel
> as fast (only a few thousand c) So it would take them even longer.

Wrong, the closest galaxy is only 150K light years away. This is the
case
for all "large" galaxies as they have several small satelite galaxies
around
them.

So if you can cross your galaxy in a short time and it is a "normal"
sized
galaxy, then you can easily get to the closest galaxy. Now since it is
clear that they can't get to the nearest galaxy in a short time, that
means
either they can not cross their galaxy in a few months or that their
galaxy is much smaller than a normal sized galaxy.

> You're like a schoolboy wondering why (since we went to the moon) we don't
> go to another starsystem. He doesn't know how vast the distances are. YOU
> don't know how vast the starsystems are. Remember at the end of ESB when
> the yare outside the Galaxy, oaa the other galaxies look as some as stars
> look form Earth.

I know exactly the relative distances, look up the term Megellanic
clouds
in an astronomy book and find out just how far they are from the Milky
way( hint, it is 160K ly and 190K ly, right around tiwce the galaxy
diameter)

> Aking why the Alliance doesn't set op camp in another galaxy is liek asking
> why we don't put NORAD on the moon of Io. Or why the Federation didn't set
> up camp in the Delta Quadrant.

No, the fact that they can't get to the nearest galaxy, proves that
either
it takes a long time to cross their galaxy or that it is a small
satellite
galaxy.

> >And where is SW does it say that their galaxy is a typical galaxy
> >anyway?
>
> Why do you say it isn't?
> In SW, they speak English, use meters, are human, need water and the same
> types of food, uses the same time scale we do, ect. Doesn't it make sence
> that the George Lucas didn't mean for the galaxieds to be diffrent sizes?

Then you will agree that when they say laser they mean laser?

> How do you know ST is set in THIS GALAXY from THIS EARTH? After all, Khan's
> war in 1992 never came about, so it can;t be the same Earth. For all we
> know, ST is set in a diffrent, galaaxy with a ONE parrele planet (Earth)

> Maybe teh ST galaxy only has 5000 star sytems!!!! Maybe their light year is
> only 4 feet!!!
>

> We can argue thius 'tel our fingers fall off, but that doen't change the
> fact that there is now way to prove the SW galaxy is any diffrent from ourt
> galaxy (but like I said, there is evidence to prove that the ST galaxy is
> diffrent from our galaxy)
>
> Can we let this die and assume they are the same?

As long as you use this same logic to admit that turbolaser must
be simply high power normal lasers then:)

David Bowie

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

--
==============================================
...And each day I learn just a little bit more,
I don't know why but I do know what for.
If we're all going somewhere let's get there soon.
(This song's got no title, just words and a tune).
-Elton John
=============================================
Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow.
-The real David Bowie
=============================================
See there! A son is born.
And we pronounce him fit to fight.
There are blackheads on his shoulders
And he wets himself in the night.
We'll make a man of him
Put him to the test.
Teach him to play Monopoly
And how to fool the rest.
-Ian Anderson
==============================================
Have a good drown
As you go down alone.
Dragged down
By the stone.
-Roger Waters
==============================================
(Me no good at this quote stuff.)

STARWARS ARE FAGGETS <ENG...@SMELLS.LIKE.RAT.DUNG!> wrote in article
<64o33c$55ju$1...@newssvr08-int.news.prodigy.com>...


> all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.
>

65.

CCS

unread,
Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97
to

Just Another Schmuck wrote:
>
> I'm not offended but I will contact Prodigy anyway - I just like to to do
> it. :) it makes me feel gooooood. :P... . .

I know what ya mean. I just got a spammer's hotmail account closed, and
I feel great! Of course, the punk will go and open another one but at
least I got my cheap thrills :P

-- Chief Crazy Shoes ICQ #2152612
Official RASSM Nobody I brake for Lobot

"Shall we beat the living crap out of him Sam?"
"Can't think of a reason not to."

Should you want to email me, I'm sure you
can guess what to remove...

Rimrunner

unread,
Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97
to

In article <01bcf466$36cbd1e0$29edacce@default>,

David Bowie <bend.o...@at.and.ill.show.you.ca> wrote:
>
>STARWARS ARE FAGGETS <ENG...@SMELLS.LIKE.RAT.DUNG!> wrote in article
><64o33c$55ju$1...@newssvr08-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>> all starwars fans are ugly nerds with the iq of 70.
>>
>65.

This from a guy who sees fit to insert 29 lines of filler in every post he
makes. At the *beginning* of every post he makes, no less.

Rimrunner
free clue: pearls of wisdom get boring after awhile
--
Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/
Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html
***Official RASSM Jedi Master***
Star Wars FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4147/
--
"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it
to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in
words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." -- _The
Books of Magic_, Neil Gaiman
--

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97
to

Mark Burland wrote:
>
> The Empire is a War machine. The Federation is a talking machine. If, in
> Star Trek, a Star Destroyer suddenly appeared, Picard would 'hail' the
> ship. To which the SD would reply by launching it's 72 fighters/bombers
> who would pulverize the Enterprise.

They would try to pulverize it and fail. Then once they made it
obvious they were not going to talk, they would get destroyed.

And then as the recent DS9 episodes have shown, it would convert
to a war machine and become rather destructive. And would
quickly be able to overrun the empire.

forcer

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:50:02 +0000, CA Wright <caw...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Mark Burland wrote:
>
>> Star Trek fans have no imaginations. They have to have a technical
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> manual to see just exactly how the turbolifts work on the Enterprise.
>>
>
>And you have no grasp of grammar. Grow up!
>
>CaW :)
>
Once upon a time, there was someone who said something, and it was
horribly misspelled. Someone frowned upon this, and said "Who is he
to use those clearly wrong words??" So he posed as the wise one,
and told the other, "You are wrong here!".
The other said, "Might be, but you understood what i meant, why didn't
you answer to that?"
Clear answer, he didn't know what to answer.
I wouldn't agree that Trek fans don't have imagination, but please, you know
what he wanted to say, so answer to that.
That's what i said a few posts ago. ST is technological centered, wheras
SW is more mythological, and thus, just not comparable.
-forcer

All spelling mistakes and grammer errors are (c)opyright by forcer.
Correction Inhibited.

--
/* Software is like sex; it's better when it's free - Linus Torvalds */
/* email: for...@mindless.com.nospam www: http://www.forcer.base.org/ */
/* finger: for...@cyberspace.org.nospam IRC: forcer (IRCnet #StarWars) */
/* pgppub: 1024/56554141 B3 2A 88 53 DB DA 12 20 FD B0 D4 79 4E 5A AB 32 */

Coffey

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:03:36 -0500, James Grady Ward
<jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:

>Mark Burland wrote:
>>
>> The Empire is a War machine. The Federation is a talking machine. If, in
>> Star Trek, a Star Destroyer suddenly appeared, Picard would 'hail' the
>> ship. To which the SD would reply by launching it's 72 fighters/bombers
>> who would pulverize the Enterprise.
>
>They would try to pulverize it and fail. Then once they made it
>obvious they were not going to talk, they would get destroyed

pieces of the Enterprise and use them for blaster practise after they
discover they are pretty musch useless for anything else. Whats
left of Data would be sold to the Jawas for a new R4 actuator, which
would break, so they would send a bunch of ATAT's to claim a refund.

>And then as the recent DS9 episodes have shown, it would convert
>to a war machine and become rather destructive. And would
>quickly be able to overrun the empire

on a fantasy holodeck simulation, moments before StormTroopers smash
down the door...

Jack Mitchell

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

There are two main reasons why the federation, or any Empire within the
ST universe would lose drastically and quickly in a war against the
Empire. Number one being the lack of fighter craft in the ST universe.
Yes, there are shuttles, but they are in no way, obviously, of competing
with any form of tie fighter in both firepower and manuverability (they
don't even have a control stick!). Due to the lack of fighter craft in
the ST universe, there would be no tactical theory detailing this
possibility. Therefore, combat other than CAPTITAL SHIP TO CAPITAL SHIP
would be totally unheard of to the Feds. I don't think I have to
mention, considering the audience, the numbers of fighter craft a normal
Star Destroyer carries. What is a Fed captain to do when confronted
with not only an extremely powerful Capital Ship, but swarms of smaller,
more maneuverable fighter craft that they have no way of defending
against? Answer: they would lose.

The second, and most convincing reason, is that the ST ships are not
primarily BATTLE SHIPS (The Defiant being an exception). They are
SCIENTIFIC or DIPLOMATIC vessels WITH DEFENSIVE CAPABILITIES! The Fed
(and every other race in the ST universe) is extremely lucky in that
every other Capital Ship ever designed in ST has been equipped with
EXACTLY THE SAME WEAPONS PACKAGE!!! A phaser bank, and forward and rear
torpedoes!! That's it! The Empire, however, doesn't care about
studying Gaseous Anomalies in the Beta Quadrant. It's Prime Directive,
shall we say, is somewhat different. The only thing the Empire cares
about is CONQUERING THe GALAXY WITH MILITARY FORCE! Therefore, instead
of having scientific scanners and quasar trackers or whatever, the Star
Destroyers have WEAPONS, WEAPONS, WEAPONS. That's it folks. They are
battleships in every meaning of the word. Their name says it all: they
DESTROY. There are no Battleships in ST. I'm sorry, guys, but there
are none. (The Defiant being the exception, but there is only one, and
still, let's face it, horribly inferior to the Star Destroyers) In a
strictly Capital Ship to Capital Ship battle, the Fed is going to
lose...quickly. That's why the Fed has lost repeatedly to the Borg.
They finally found a race that didn't care about studying the birth of
new stars, or documenting the growth of inferior species, or honoring a
Prime Directive. They found a race that only cared about shaping the
galaxy to its vision, and had enough power to do so. The Empire,
obviously likewise, would make short work of the Fed. Again, what is a
Fed captain to do when faced with a swarm of smaller fighter craft it
has no means of defending against, and an opponent commanding a much
larger and imminently more powerful Capital Ship that only has one
purpose in its existence: to UTTERLY DESTROY WHATEVER WOULD FOOLISHLY
STAND IN ITS WAY? Answer: hopefully, if the Captain is smart,
surrender, and start reading up on Geurilla Revolutionary Tactics.

T McDonald

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

In article <34747B...@eos.ncsu.edu>,

James Grady Ward <jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Mark Burland wrote:
>>
>> The Empire is a War machine. The Federation is a talking machine. If, in
>> Star Trek, a Star Destroyer suddenly appeared, Picard would 'hail' the
>> ship. To which the SD would reply by launching it's 72 fighters/bombers
>> who would pulverize the Enterprise.
>
>They would try to pulverize it and fail. Then once they made it
>obvious they were not going to talk, they would get destroyed.

>
>And then as the recent DS9 episodes have shown, it would convert
>to a war machine and become rather destructive. And would
>quickly be able to overrun the empire.

You mean you watch Deep Space 9 on purpose? You really are a fan. Still
even if I was a fan of Jesus I doubt I'd show it by wearing hair shirts
and practicing self flagulation, but that's just me.

To each their own.


David Johnston

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

Jake Landrum wrote:
>
> Mark Burland wrote:
>
> > The Empire is a War machine. The Federation is a talking machine. If, in
> > Star Trek, a Star Destroyer suddenly appeared, Picard would 'hail' the
> > ship. To which the SD would reply by launching it's 72 fighters/bombers
> > who would pulverize the Enterprise.
>
> Sigh. Typical Warsie. Ignoring that anyone OTHER than the federation
> exists. The Romulans wouldn't do much talking, I'd imagine. Niether

No one other than the Federation exists. This is because the others
aren't going to fight on the same side as the Federation. The Romulans
are just as likely to attack the Federation while it is distracted
by the Empire as vice versa.

would
> the Gorn. You want a War Machine? The Klingons come to mind quickly. Not
> much talking there.
>
> Tyralak

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> Why would we want to DOWNGRADE the weapons on the ST ships to the
> wimpy SW weapons?

SW weapons have been proven, yes, PROVEN to be THOUSANDS of times more
powerful than Trek weapons. Live with it.

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

On 24 Nov 1997, Jason Walter Bold wrote:

> Simple - the Federation would kick the bejesus out of the Empire for
> one simple reason: transporter technology.

Funny how they can't kick the Dominion's ass, or the Cardassians ass.
because their ship has what StarWars ships have..shields.


Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> Coffey wrote:

> > >a single SD is in no way a match for any ST ship
> > if it's shields are down, hull is breached, its crew dead, engines
> > offline and all weaponry disabled.

> Yes, you are right.

Glad you agree that Trek needs those advantages to win.


Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> Lightning wrote:

> > The computer control system is irrelevant. The pilot still has to make
> > course corrections. It takes much less time to move a joystick than it
> > does to type in a bunch of coordinates. The other guy would loop around
> > you and fire again before you could type the course change!

> Who says they are typing in coordinates? The instructions are usually
> specific manuvers. What is beign typed in, is which set of
> pre-programed instructions to follow. It is rare that the controls are
> even done manually.

Then why is Kirk ready to shit yellow in TWOK when Saavik is giving orders
to leave drydock? KIRK: "I don't think these kids an steer."

> So the computer being fully in control is much better than any
> silly human controled system.

Computer's NEVER fully in control. Read your tech manual.

> > The phasers have a low firing rate on full. They can fire quickly with
> > each segment like in (whatever the ep was). But most SW fighters have
> > shields. The phasers on the low setting might not penetrate them.

> And more likely

Exactly.


David Johnston

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

timeout wrote:
>
> > >
> > >That would require the stromtrooper to have enough intellegence
> > >to know what a door is, something that from the movies is rather
> > >questionable. The stromtroopers would either get stuned by phasers
> > >or by knock-out gas released in the area they enter the ship. THat
> > >is even assuming they ever got on the ship, which is very unlikely.
>
> And don't forget the force fields that can be placed at every bulkhead
> on anyFed ship, or Fed station. And like you said, it would be
> unlikely.

Not really. That sort of thing hasn't stopped any opponent that
the scriptwriter wants to take over the ship.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:
>
> > Why would we want to DOWNGRADE the weapons on the ST ships to the
> > wimpy SW weapons?
>
> SW weapons have been proven, yes, PROVEN to be THOUSANDS of times more
> powerful than Trek weapons. Live with it.

Why live with an obvious lie? Just where is anything close to the
ablitiy of 25 to 30 ST ships to vaporize 30% of a planets crust ever
shown by a SW ship? Nowhere. SW weapons have been proven repeated
to be THOUSANDS of times weaker than ST weapons.

Not to mention since the are lasers they are effectively useless
against ST shields.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

They have SW shields. SW shields can be hurt by lasers. ST shields
can ignore lasers. So what is your point?

And the Dominion ships are a damn sight stronger than anything in
SW. Hell any ship in ST is probably stronger than anyship in SW.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:
>
> > Coffey wrote:
>
> > > >a single SD is in no way a match for any ST ship
> > > if it's shields are down, hull is breached, its crew dead, engines
> > > offline and all weaponry disabled.
>
> > Yes, you are right.
>
> Glad you agree that Trek needs those advantages to win.

Nope, you intentionally mis read what I have posted. IF a ST ship
turned off all of its shields and weapons and had no crew, THEN
just maybe a SW ship might be able to take it out. Actually the
ships computer programed to protect the ship would be more than
enough to keep it safe.

A SW ship is no match for any ST ship.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:
>
> > Lightning wrote:
>
> > > The computer control system is irrelevant. The pilot still has to make
> > > course corrections. It takes much less time to move a joystick than it
> > > does to type in a bunch of coordinates. The other guy would loop around
> > > you and fire again before you could type the course change!
>
> > Who says they are typing in coordinates? The instructions are usually
> > specific manuvers. What is beign typed in, is which set of
> > pre-programed instructions to follow. It is rare that the controls are
> > even done manually.
>
> Then why is Kirk ready to shit yellow in TWOK when Saavik is giving orders
> to leave drydock? KIRK: "I don't think these kids an steer."

I think you have the characters backwards there. Kirk is the one that
was known for cutting the very edge of safetly on speeds of ships in
spacedock.

> > So the computer being fully in control is much better than any
> > silly human controled system.
>
> Computer's NEVER fully in control. Read your tech manual.

Actually WATCH THE SHOW. They do show that the computer can be fully
in control and does do most of the controling during battle. The
buttons
they are pushing are selecting pre-programed actions into the computer.

> > > The phasers have a low firing rate on full. They can fire quickly with
> > > each segment like in (whatever the ep was). But most SW fighters have
> > > shields. The phasers on the low setting might not penetrate them.
>
> > And more likely
>
> Exactly.

Right, instant roasted TIE, even at the lowest setting most likely.

And the pulse firing is not a low power level, just a short burst.

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

On 24 Nov 1997 s146...@umassd.edu wrote:

> Worf blasted the entire Lysian attack force with the touch of ONE
> button. AT least the Lysian drones had minimal shielding...already a
> more hardened target than TIE Fighters.

Ahh....you come back to this arguement with something that was disproven
over a year ago? Lysian drones traveling in a nice neat straight line, not
performing any evasive maneuvers whatsoever...as I said, an old arguement
beaten to death. Sorry, man, this is the last post of yours I'll answer.
You havn't changed a bit from the last time you told me Luke needed 3P0 to
translate what Jabba was saying to him, because he couldn't understand
Huttese. Have you met James Grady Ward? He likes to spout scenes in SW
movies that never happened too..

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> > Glad you agree that Trek needs those advantages to win.
>
> Nope, you intentionally mis read what I have posted.

REALLY?????? Why does that sound familiar?


Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> They have SW shields. SW shields can be hurt by lasers. ST shields
> can ignore lasers. So what is your point?

Point is, SW ships use something infinitely more powerful than "lasers" in
Trek. Been proven with onscreen evidence, source material, and common
sense. You can keep ignoring these facts, but it won't make them any less
true. Life's a bitch, aint it?


Rich Handley

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Stop cross-posting this to the Star Wars newsgroups. It is off-topic
and the vast majority of people in our newsgroup have asked patiently,
over and over again, to keep this topic in the proper newsgroup. You
are clearly only trying to stir up trouble by continuing to start
these posts in the SW newsgroups, Celes.


"Celes" <ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote:

>> Sigh. Typical Warsie. Ignoring that anyone OTHER than the
>federation

>>exists. The Romulans wouldn't do much talking, I'd imagine. Niether would


>>the Gorn. You want a War Machine? The Klingons come to mind quickly. Not
>>much talking there.

>When did the Romulan Star Empire and the Gron become members of the
>FEDERATION!?!

>The Subject line of this thread IS NOT a math problem. "Empire (was Re:
>Federation vs. The Empire)" does not mean "Empire x was + Federation x
>Empire vs. The Empire^2"

Sincerely,

Rich Handley (Card...@unix.asb.com)


James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 1997 s146...@umassd.edu wrote:
>
> > Worf blasted the entire Lysian attack force with the touch of ONE
> > button. AT least the Lysian drones had minimal shielding...already a
> > more hardened target than TIE Fighters.
>
> Ahh....you come back to this arguement with something that was disproven
> over a year ago? Lysian drones traveling in a nice neat straight line, not
> performing any evasive maneuvers whatsoever...as I said, an old arguement
> beaten to death.

You mean one that has beaten SW to death. It is clear that the computer
can
target any fighters coming at it and in less than a second start picking
them off. And those craft were not going in straight lines, nor was the
Enterprise at the time either since it was clearly turning.

It is clear that they can take out a wave of fighter craft quite easily.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

And it has been shown from the source material that they are called
lasers EVERYWHERE. Even in the tech manuals they describe laser
as "coherent light". Face the facts, they are meant to be lasers.

And lasers do not cause any noticable effect on ST shields. And they
have never been shown to be anywhere near to power levels of the phasers
either.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Celes wrote:
>
> >Simple - the Federation would kick the bejesus out of the Empire for
> >one simple reason: transporter technology.
>
> >Make that two simple reasons: warp technology
>
> Let see, for the former, you seem to have miised the point that in 1/3 of
> the ST episodes, the Transporters don't work because of "technobabble" or
> because the enemies shields are up. As for the warp driver one, you take
> you 3,000c engines, and we'll take out 1.1 million c engines. SW could lay
> waste to evey planet in hte Federation before the ST ships can group
> together.

If you insist on using this one ( clearly in error) estimate of SW
ship speeds, then do we get to use the detail that a ST ship is shown
to be able to travel 25,000 light years in the course of about 3 days
, with a couple of several hour stops, in ST5? And that is an average
ship, would hate to see what the fastest ST ships does on that scale.

Duy Tran

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Hey "can't we all get along." I know people who are both Star Wars and Star
Trek fans. Hey, I like the ears.

Celes

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

>If Vader fought Picard,or any other damn trekkie, he would beat the
>shit out of him. The Dark SIde Of The Force Rules!!!!!!
>And Trekkies Just Plain Suck!!!
>HAIL THE EMPEROR !!!!.....you damn trekkies


Ah... calm down...

I'm a SW supporter, but you aren't helping our side.
Can I suggest less swearing and insulting? All they do is bring down the
general level of the discussion and cause the other side to beginning
flaming us. We both like Sci-Fi, so let's be civil in the debates.

Join in on the discussions--we like to have all the opinions we can get, but
use more reasoned arguments.

Happy debating!
--
Celes
ce...@deskmedia.com
Then I will tell you a great secret, Captain, perhaps the greatest of
all time. The molecules of your body are same molecules that make up this
station, and the nebula outside--that burn inside the stars themselves. We
are starstuff. We are the Universe made manifest, tring to figure itself
out.
-Delenn, Babylon 5

All the molecules in your body were formed inside stars.
We are the future of ancient stars.
-The 1997 Nobel Conference.

Coffey

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:21:28 -0800, Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:

>
>On 24 Nov 1997 s146...@umassd.edu wrote:
>
>> Worf blasted the entire Lysian attack force with the touch of ONE
>> button. AT least the Lysian drones had minimal shielding...already a
>> more hardened target than TIE Fighters.
>
>Ahh....you come back to this arguement with something that was disproven
>over a year ago? Lysian drones traveling in a nice neat straight line, not
>performing any evasive maneuvers whatsoever...as I said, an old arguement

>beaten to death. Sorry, man, this is the last post of yours I'll answer.
>You havn't changed a bit from the last time you told me Luke needed 3P0 to
>translate what Jabba was saying to him, because he couldn't understand
>Huttese. Have you met James Grady Ward? He likes to spout scenes in SW
>movies that never happened too..

Like some SD/s that 'exploded' when it's bridge was hit.
He said something like,

"ahhh fools don't you know SD's have a tendancy to explode when their
bridges are hit"

Is he writing his own stories or something?

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:
>
> > > Glad you agree that Trek needs those advantages to win.
> >
> > Nope, you intentionally mis read what I have posted.
>
> REALLY?????? Why does that sound familiar?

Reality of this thread.

ST > SW > ST > SW

depending on which examples you chose you can get any
result you like.

But if you take the most extreme examples of fire power for
both, it is clear that ST ships are far beyond SW ships.

If you want to continue this silly thing go ahead. Just remove
the voyager group and I will quite responding.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Coffey wrote:
>


> Like some SD/s that 'exploded' when it's bridge was hit.
> He said something like,
>
> "ahhh fools don't you know SD's have a tendancy to explode when their
> bridges are hit"
>
> Is he writing his own stories or something?

So it lost control, but it is clear that a single hit on the
bridge screws the ship.

Wedge

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Duy Tran wrote:
>
> Hey "can't we all get along." I know people who are both Star Wars and Star
> Trek fans. Hey, I like the ears.

Exactly, me too. No, not just the ears... Also, I wonder if anyone
realises this is being cross-posted. I read posts on this thread
referring to "this place" and the likes. Well, I'm posting from RASSM so
be more considerate with cross posting.

--
Matthew Ting
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/8894/ - My SW:CCG homepage!
And remember to send those card review requests!
"What do you want to do today, Brain?" "I'm going to conquer the WORLD!"
"Oh, that again..."
-Pinky and the Brain

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:

> > Then why is Kirk ready to shit yellow in TWOK when Saavik is giving orders
> > to leave drydock? KIRK: "I don't think these kids an steer."

> I think you have the characters backwards there. Kirk is the one that
> was known for cutting the very edge of safetly on speeds of ships in
> spacedock.

I think you need to watch "The Wrath of Khan" again. The scene is clear.


Celes

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

>> Point is, SW ships use something infinitely more powerful than "lasers"
in
>> Trek. Been proven with onscreen evidence, source material, and common
>> sense. You can keep ignoring these facts, but it won't make them any less
>> true. Life's a bitch, aint it?

>And it has been shown from the source material that they are called
>lasers EVERYWHERE. Even in the tech manuals they describe laser
>as "coherent light". Face the facts, they are meant to be lasers.


Tech manuesl arn't doing to go nowadays. After last weeks beam through the
shields on Voyager, the we-can-do-warp-10 episdoe proved the warp scale
wrong, the fact that the Defiant can have it's naceles close to the ship,
the fact that it's wrong about hte number of GC ships, and it's wrong about
what the next class of ship is/was. Techmanuels in gereral are so completly
outdated that they shouldn't even be used as canon evidence. Maybe when the
Prquels tech manuels or a new DS9 tech manual comes out, they'll be more
reliable (for a little while).

>And lasers do not cause any noticable effect on ST shields. And they
>have never been shown to be anywhere near to power levels of the phasers
>either.

No, one races lasers aparently have no effect of ST shields, BUT...
Phasers have no effect on hulls (acording to one DS9 episode).

Powerfull ebough laser will destroy a ST ship.

Celes

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

>>Ahh....you come back to this arguement with something that was disproven
>>over a year ago? Lysian drones traveling in a nice neat straight line, not
>>performing any evasive maneuvers whatsoever...as I said, an old arguement
>>beaten to death. Sorry, man, this is the last post of yours I'll answer.
>>You havn't changed a bit from the last time you told me Luke needed 3P0 to
>>translate what Jabba was saying to him, because he couldn't understand
>>Huttese. Have you met James Grady Ward? He likes to spout scenes in SW
>>movies that never happened too..

>Like some SD/s that 'exploded' when it's bridge was hit.
>He said something like,

>"ahhh fools don't you know SD's have a tendancy to explode when their
>bridges are hit"

>Is he writing his own stories or something?

LOL, yes, he must be.

The Lysian fighters travel in a staright line and die, he Fed fighters dodge
and live, sp therefore (by James reasoning) the Tie fighters. which dodge,
will all die. Strange isn't it.

Also how could anyone assume that Turbolasers are lasers? They travel
slower than light. How else could we see them? How else could they be
dodged? Why else would the gunners lead their targets? Either they have
FTL gunners and pilots, or TLs arn't lasers.

Celes

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

>> Sigh. Typical Warsie. Ignoring that anyone OTHER than the
>federation
>> exists. The Romulans wouldn't do much talking, I'd imagine. Niether would
>> the Gorn. You want a War Machine? The Klingons come to mind quickly. Not
>> much talking there.

>The poster who started this thread (a Trek fan) specified Feds vs Empire
>(read the subject line)


For the record, I started the "Federation vs The Empire" and I'm a SW
supporter. I put The Federation part first just because it seems like ST
comes first in all the threads (and even in the name
alt.startrek.vs.starwars")

Michael John Scott

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Not to mention that Vader and Emperor Palantine can use "the force" to crush
the shell of the ST ships (according to the SW novels), and/or throw the
ships into each other...

Besides.. Earth would get blown to bits as the Death Star zipped over here
and zapped our butts...
and don't forget... if you wanna' pull-in your various ST races.. we get to
pull-in the entire Rebel Alliance... and all the surviving Jedi Knights...
hmm... and the Ewoks..
(and YOU thought you had trouble with TRIBBLES?!)

:) I can just SEE Captain Kirk "beaming" himself to the emperor as a sign
of peace, and getting nailed by lightning as him and his red shirts lose
their grasps on their weapons...

ugh.. I wish I hadn't visualized that... I can just SEE that Willy Shatner
overacting as the Lightning struck him...
hmm... would it be as bad as Mark Hamill's reaction???

Jack Mitchell wrote in message <3475C9...@kdi.com>...
>There are two main reasons why the federation, or any Empire within the
>ST universe would lose drastically and quickly in a war against the
>Empire. Number one being the lack of fighter craft in the ST universe.
>Yes, there are shuttles, but they are in no way, obviously, of competing
>with any form of tie fighter in both firepower and manuverability (they
>don't even have a control stick!). Due to the lack of fighter craft in
>the ST universe, there would be no tactical theory detailing this
>possibility. Therefore, combat other than CAPTITAL SHIP TO CAPITAL SHIP
>would be totally unheard of to the Feds. I don't think I have to
>mention, considering the audience, the numbers of fighter craft a normal
>Star Destroyer carries. What is a Fed captain to do when confronted
>with not only an extremely powerful Capital Ship, but swarms of smaller,
>more maneuverable fighter craft that they have no way of defending
>against? Answer: they would lose.
>
>The second, and most convincing reason, is that the ST ships are not
>primarily BATTLE SHIPS (The Defiant being an exception). They are
>SCIENTIFIC or DIPLOMATIC vessels WITH DEFENSIVE CAPABILITIES! The Fed
>(and every other race in the ST universe) is extremely lucky in that
>every other Capital Ship ever designed in ST has been equipped with
>EXACTLY THE SAME WEAPONS PACKAGE!!! A phaser bank, and forward and rear
>torpedoes!! That's it! The Empire, however, doesn't care about
>studying Gaseous Anomalies in the Beta Quadrant. It's Prime Directive,
>shall we say, is somewhat different. The only thing the Empire cares
>about is CONQUERING THe GALAXY WITH MILITARY FORCE! Therefore, instead
>of having scientific scanners and quasar trackers or whatever, the Star
>Destroyers have WEAPONS, WEAPONS, WEAPONS. That's it folks. They are
>battleships in every meaning of the word. Their name says it all: they
>DESTROY. There are no Battleships in ST. I'm sorry, guys, but there
>are none. (The Defiant being the exception, but there is only one, and
>still, let's face it, horribly inferior to the Star Destroyers) In a
>strictly Capital Ship to Capital Ship battle, the Fed is going to
>lose...quickly

Michael John Scott

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

hmm... you ST guys DO realize that we have Ewoks?
:).. and a single ship capable of destroying a planet with a single blast,
called a "Death Star" (which can also target capital ships).

And last... but certainly not least.. a SUN destroyer.. which you may be
unfamiliar with.. It is a ship which can fly into a Sun and shoot-off a
single burst of fire which can trigger a Super-Nova and burn an entire SOLAR
SYSTEM with a single shot. It was featured in the SW novels.

Is your Runabout's defense system gonna' ignore that? being in the same
system as a Sun exploding?
What about all of your capital Ships? are they equipped with a hyperdrive
unit, and are they under orders to jump out of the system instantly on a
predetermined course? all triggered by a single cue?

Seems to ME that I if I had a single Sun-killer, I could take-on your entire
ST galaxy myself!
Hell! you could even throw-in a Battlestar Galactica galaxy, a Buck Rodgers
galaxy, a Babylon 5 galaxy, a Red Dwarf Galaxy, and a few Doctor Who's ta'
boot!! and I'd STILL be wearing Spock's ears on a necklace before the week
was out!

Besides... you gonna' mess with our EWOKS??


Michael Wong wrote in message <347695f4...@news.ebtech.net>...
>>The shuttles( never mind runnabouts or the recently shown FIGHTERS on
>>DS9) have shields as strong as the shields on the ships themselves.
>>They would be more than safe from silly SW fighters. The weapons on the
>>shuttles are very likely much stronger than the ones on the TIEs and
possiblly
>>the ones on the SD themselves.
>
>Without getting further embroiled in this ridiculous post, I would
>just like to comment on your habitual misinformation. Regardless of
>whether the Empire or the Federation would win a war (I feel it's the
>Empire for reasons which I have elucidated before), you should not run
>around spouting total nonsense about Star Trek!
>
>The shields on a runabout are NOT as strong as the shields on a ST
>capital ship! Since when have we ever seen runabout absorb the kind
>of punishment (multiple photorps and direct hits with phasers and
>disruptors) that ST capital ships can withstand? Why do you insist on
>spraying this total misinformation around Usenet?
>
>>As for the lack of a control stick, that is because ST realizes how
>>stupid it is to limit a ships speed to what a human can deal with and
>>lets the computer do the manuvering. Hence they are orders of
>>mangintude better at manuvering that anything in SW.
>
>By verbally instructing helmsmen with speed and direction changes?
>That's how navigation is handled in Trek, and that's a pretty
>god-awful control scheme compared to a joystick. That, in fact, has
>always been one of my pet peeves about Trek. Even in combat,
>maneuvering is handled by Picard (or whatever captain is in charge)
>barking out direction and speed change orders to the helmsman, who
>tries to comply as quickly as possible. How inefficient is THAT?
>
>>Actually ignoring for the moment the detail that ST does have fighters
>>and runnabouts, a regular ST ships could simply place the phasers on
>>auto-target and take out the fighters without even slowing down.
>
>Assuming that it can target small highly maneuverable fighters.
>Remember that it can't target photon torpedoes, and photon torpedoes
>aren't especially maneuverable.
>
><snip endless blather>
>>Why, he could let the SD fire at his shields for a few hours then
>>ask the SD to surrend once he realizes that he can't hurt the ST ship.
>
>Again, based on totally unsupported assumptions about firepower,
>shield strength, etc. which have ALL been brought up before and shot
>down repeatedly, over and over and over and over, because this thread
>has been going on for years.
>
>You mut have a helluva lot of time on your hands to compose these
>ridiculously long posts of yours. What's amazing is how you can
>compose hundreds of lines of useless rhetoric like the example above
>without actually providing any real evidence of any of your wild
>assertions. If you are a real Star Trek fan, you should describe the
>universe of Star Trek accurately, rather than distorting it in order
>to "win" these stupid little arguments (which you will never "win"
>anyway- these arguments are inherently unwinnable).

Jake Landrum

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to


Mark Burland wrote:

> Star Trek fans are stupid...
>
> Why?
>
> They think a human with a furrowed brow makes a believable alien.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Ahhhh..... The sweet sound of Trolls scurrying about.

Tyralak


T'kol

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to Michael John Scott

Seems to me that SW novels are where you get much of your information.
Well, as much as I want to, I refraim from using information used in the
Trek books I read. Why? - Because, no matter what anybody says, the SW
and ST novels are not cannon!!

I could sit down - write a Trek book - Publish it, but my opinions and
ideas in that book would not be fact!!

Fandar

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

T'kol wrote:
>
> Seems to me that SW novels are where you get much of your information.
> Well, as much as I want to, I refraim from using information used in the
> Trek books I read. Why? - Because, no matter what anybody says, the SW
> and ST novels are not cannon!!
>
> I could sit down - write a Trek book - Publish it, but my opinions and
> ideas in that book would not be fact!!

I don't even read the books at all. Not just because there not canon,
which is good reason in its self, but because they suck. To me there
just mass produced pieces of crap that are very work man like. If I'm
going to read its going to be a book where the auther had to use his own
imagination, not off the shelf parts. Am I the only one that feels this
way?
--
Fandar
When replying remove nospam.
"When single shines the triple sun, what was sundererd and undone. Shall
be whole, the two made one. By gelfling hand or else by none. " Ancient
prophecy.

Michael Wong

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

>Reality of this thread.
>ST > SW > ST > SW
>depending on which examples you chose you can get any
>result you like.

Finally, you said something that everyone can agree with!

>But if you take the most extreme examples of fire power for
>both, it is clear that ST ships are far beyond SW ships.

You couldn't resist throwing in another totally unsupported pro-ST
assertion, could you? And you were almost sounding rational for a
second there.

>If you want to continue this silly thing go ahead. Just remove
>the voyager group and I will quite responding.

Judging by the sheer volume of your posts in this NG I kind of doubt
that.

Coffey

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 04:23:23 -0500, James Grady Ward
<jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:

>Coffey wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Like some SD/s that 'exploded' when it's bridge was hit.
>> He said something like,
>>
>> "ahhh fools don't you know SD's have a tendancy to explode when their
>> bridges are hit"
>>
>> Is he writing his own stories or something?
>

>So it lost control, but it is clear that a single hit on the
>bridge screws the ship.

What about all those Calamari Cruisers, Nebula frigates, X-wings,
Y-wings, A-wings and B-wings that were concentrating ALL FIREPOWER on
it (it was unshhielded too)?

AND All the Calamari Cruisers and Nebula Frigates could lock all of
their combined tractor beams onto it and TOW it into DS2.

Wayne Poe

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, T'kol wrote:

> Seems to me that SW novels are where you get much of your information.
> Well, as much as I want to, I refraim from using information used in the
> Trek books I read. Why? - Because, no matter what anybody says, the SW
> and ST novels are not cannon!!

The films are the "canon" - a much-abused term which is not the same as
being "official". The continuity policy of the LF editors, stated
plainly in the first issue of SW Insider:

"What's 'gospel' and what isn't?
"'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays,
the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin
out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other
writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is
taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of
published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots,
variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."

Drums1979

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

>And last... but certainly not least.. a SUN destroyer.. which you may be
>unfamiliar with.. It is a ship which can fly into a Sun and shoot-off a
>single burst of fire which can trigger a Super-Nova and burn an entire SOLAR
>SYSTEM with a single shot. It was featured in the SW novels.
>
>

Uh......ever hear of Trilithium torpedoes......uh, ST has em, and they are in a
ST Movie, not a book. Why have a specialized ship ( ie the Sun Crusher ) when
you can just launch thousands of warp capable torpedoes loaded with Trilithium
to destroy your enemis' home stars ( as ST is capable of ) from ANY ship
capable of launching torpedoes?


*********************************************
Michael Hafer - Drums1979 - In Fort Wayne, IN
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8343/BOP.html">A Good Band Page with
sound files ~§:o)</A>

Drums1979

unread,
Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97
to

>AND All the Calamari Cruisers and Nebula Frigates could lock all of
>their combined tractor beams onto it and TOW it into DS2.

This was not shown. Also, would the Rebel Cruisers and Frigates just ask all
the other Imperial Star Destroyers to, " Hold on while we throw your flagship
into your base"? An unusual display of diplomatic courtesy on the part of the
other Imperial ships, but highly unlikely. ~§:o)

Michael Wong

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

> I don't even read the books at all. Not just because there not canon,
>which is good reason in its self, but because they suck. To me there
>just mass produced pieces of crap that are very work man like. If I'm
>going to read its going to be a book where the auther had to use his own
>imagination, not off the shelf parts. Am I the only one that feels this
>way?

I have read some ST books which I felt were quite well written and
enjoyable, and others which left me feeling cheated and annoyed. It
depends on the writer. There's nothing wrong with using a well-known
background of characters and situations (eg- the Star Trek universe)
to make an original story, as long as that story is a good one.

I wouldn't call that "off the shelf" parts any more than most novels
use "off the shelf" parts. EVERY story incorporates bits and pieces
of genre cliches, ideas stolen from other books and movies, and
well-worn storytelling conventions.

The thing is though, I don't read a book and assume that every
technological device, trick, or capability mentioned in the book is
suddenly a legitimate part of the ST universe. From the way some
people in this thread post, it sounds almost like they read a book,
see something interesting happen with a SW or ST character, and
memorize it for use in this stupid thread!

Mark Burland

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

u r sad

Mark Burland

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
How stupid!

Mark Burland

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Too right mate.
Even THE largest ships in ST would look tiny compared to a Star
Destroyer, or a Super Star Destroyer. SD's are a mile long. How big is
the Enterprise? Pretty darn small.
A Star Destroyer wouldn't need to fire a single weapon, it could just
run the Ent. over.

c

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to fil...@nospampacbell.net

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Fandar wrote

> T'kol wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me that SW novels are where you get much of your information.
> > Well, as much as I want to, I refraim from using information used in the
> > Trek books I read. Why? - Because, no matter what anybody says, the SW
> > and ST novels are not cannon!!

Au contraire! There are exceptions to every rule. The Voyager novel
Mosaic, written by Jeri Taylor, is indeed canon.

Jenny


Lars P. Ormberg

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Celes wrote:

> >And lasers do not cause any noticable effect on ST shields. And they
> >have never been shown to be anywhere near to power levels of the phasers
> >either.
>
> No, one races lasers aparently have no effect of ST shields, BUT...
> Phasers have no effect on hulls (acording to one DS9 episode).

That was Kira and Dukat firing on the Bird of Prey?

The phaser on that cargo ship wasn't powerful enough to damage the ship,
but later in the episode they successfully defeated it with a stronger
weapon.



> Powerfull ebough laser will destroy a ST ship.

Ha.

--
Lars Ormberg mailto:la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

The countdown is on! Less than a week to go! The University of Lars
at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ is in final preparations, and will
be up and running by December 2nd, 1997! From Redneck to Politics to
Star Trek to Science to Pictures and Comedy, the University of Lars
will be the definitive University webpage. Until then, enjoy
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/5847/

Lars P. Ormberg

unread,
Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97
to

Michael John Scott wrote:

> And last... but certainly not least.. a SUN destroyer.. which you may be
> unfamiliar with..

The Sun Crusher (or was it Star Crusher)?

> It is a ship which can fly into a Sun and shoot-off a
> single burst of fire which can trigger a Super-Nova and burn an entire SOLAR
> SYSTEM with a single shot. It was featured in the SW novels.

Does the Federation get the "Unity Device" from "ST:A Final Unity"?

> What about all of your capital Ships? are they equipped with a hyperdrive
> unit, and are they under orders to jump out of the system instantly on a
> predetermined course? all triggered by a single cue?

How fast does a supernova expand at? Lightspeed.

Trek ships have realtime FTL sensors. Remember the Amagosa Star
explosion in "Generations"? There was 8 minutes of lead-time.



> Besides... you gonna' mess with our EWOKS??

Stun the little buggers.

Eric Goodwin

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Size really has nothing to do with it. If it did then the Defiant would
get its little @$$ kicked almost everytime. The Ent. could parked right
above and fire a couple quantoms, and bye-bye Destroyer.


Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk> wrote in article
<348147...@aic.co.uk>...

OVEREADER

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

>
>Au contraire! There are exceptions to every rule. The Voyager novel
>Mosaic, written by Jeri Taylor, is indeed canon.

and all SW novels are considerd cannon

OVEREADER

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

>
>The Sun Crusher (or was it Star Crusher)?

Sun Crusher

>
>> It is a ship which can fly into a Sun and shoot-off a
>> single burst of fire which can trigger a Super-Nova and burn an entire
>SOLAR
>> SYSTEM with a single shot. It was featured in the SW novels.
>
>

it doesn't fly into the sun at all.

James Grady Ward

unread,
Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97
to

Eric Goodwin wrote:
>
> Size really has nothing to do with it. If it did then the Defiant would
> get its little @$$ kicked almost everytime. The Ent. could parked right
> above and fire a couple quantoms, and bye-bye Destroyer.

Not to mention, the Galaxy ships are nearly 700 meters long. That
is just about half the length of a SD. Call it a third if you want,
but is is not going to look tiny.

>
> Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk> wrote in article
> <348147...@aic.co.uk>...
> > Too right mate.
> > Even THE largest ships in ST would look tiny compared to a Star
> > Destroyer, or a Super Star Destroyer. SD's are a mile long. How big is
> > the Enterprise? Pretty darn small.
> > A Star Destroyer wouldn't need to fire a single weapon, it could just
> > run the Ent. over.

It would have to be able to catch up to it to do that.Eric Goodwin
wrote:


--
buckysan

annapuma and unapumma in 98

44% of people think there is intelligent life besides earth
44% of people think there is intelligent life in washington DC

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

> >Au contraire! There are exceptions to every rule. The Voyager novel
> >Mosaic, written by Jeri Taylor, is indeed canon.

What makes you think that?

Andrew P Street

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

This is SO CHILDISH!

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't real, you know. Arguing who would destroy who
in a space battle is a little bit pointless as THEY DON'T EXIST! THEY'RE BOTH
WORKS OF FICTION MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS THAT DON'T OVERLAP!

So calm down a bit.

Oh, and Becky from Small Wonder could kick both Data & Threepio's arses any
day.

:)

APS

Carl Seutter IV

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to mbur...@aic.co.uk


Mark Burland wrote:

Head on confrontations are the classic battle.The effect of closure is
exploited here. Weapons have a seemingly longer range in this kind of
attack. Unfortunately, the outcome is too easy to predict. Whoever can
inflict the most harm the fastest wins. That's why maneuver warfare came
about!

X-wings charge head on into a fight to take advantage of their stronger
shielding and stronger/ multiple weapons. The ideal X-wing charge is a group
of 4. TIEs beware of this wedge. The TIEs however, don't use their speed and
maneuverablility to a premium. They don't have shields to recharge, so all
power can be dumped into engines and weapons. Their forte is breaking up
groups of Xwings and entering furballs with them. <Kinda like F-16s taking
on MiG-31s or early block MiG-29s dealing with F-15s. >

That's one flaw I find with ST. Why fly into danger when a ^V would allow a
sidestep? You're still delivering frontal power from fixed weapons, but the
yaw and pitch are irrelevant of forward momentum.

Carl


Austin

unread,
Dec 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/2/97
to

Lars P. Ormberg wrote:
>
> Celes wrote:
>
> > >And lasers do not cause any noticable effect on ST shields. And they
> > >have never been shown to be anywhere near to power levels of the phasers
> > >either.
> >
> > No, one races lasers aparently have no effect of ST shields, BUT...
> > Phasers have no effect on hulls (acording to one DS9 episode).
>
> That was Kira and Dukat firing on the Bird of Prey?
>
> The phaser on that cargo ship wasn't powerful enough to damage the ship,
> but later in the episode they successfully defeated it with a stronger
> weapon.
>
> > Powerfull ebough laser will destroy a ST ship.
>
> Ha.
>
> --
> Lars Ormberg mailto:la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>
> The countdown is on! Less than a week to go! The University of Lars
> at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ is in final preparations, and will
> be up and running by December 2nd, 1997! From Redneck to Politics to
> Star Trek to Science to Pictures and Comedy, the University of Lars
> will be the definitive University webpage. Until then, enjoy
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Club/5847/
that is funny. In one of the st episodes an enemy ship threatened to
destroy their ship with lasers, the ship lowered their shields to prove
that their lasers are powerless to them.

David Johnston

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

timeout wrote:
>
> David Johnston wrote:
>
> > timeout wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >That would require the stromtrooper to have enough intellegence
> > > > >to know what a door is, something that from the movies is rather
> > > > >questionable. The stromtroopers would either get stuned by
> > phasers
> > > > >or by knock-out gas released in the area they enter the ship.
> > THat
> > > > >is even assuming they ever got on the ship, which is very
> > unlikely.
> > >
> > > And don't forget the force fields that can be placed at every
> > bulkhead
> > > on anyFed ship, or Fed station. And like you said, it would be
> > > unlikely.
> >
> > Not really. That sort of thing hasn't stopped any opponent that
> > the scriptwriter wants to take over the ship.
>
> If we are talking scriptwriting then ST always comes up with the tech to
> win.

Absolutely. And that's what would happen in a battle with the Empire.
But only at the last moment.


Coffey

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 14:35:27 -0500, James Grady Ward
<jgw...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:

>Eric Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Size really has nothing to do with it. If it did then the Defiant would
>> get its little @$$ kicked almost everytime. The Ent. could parked right
>> above and fire a couple quantoms, and bye-bye Destroyer.
>
>Not to mention, the Galaxy ships are nearly 700 meters long.

And about as relatively skinny/unvolumous :) as an eel is compared to
a mountain lion

> That
>is just about half the length of a SD. Call it a third if you want,
>but is is not going to look tiny.

Yeah but it would sure look spindly and fragile.
Like say a wooden cart compared to a M1 tank.

Coffey

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:56:08 +0000, Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk>
wrote:

>Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
>Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
>How stupid!

Yeah why do they (virtually never) play on each others range limits?
Are all ST weapons EXACTLY the same range?!?

Coffey

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:56:08 +0000, Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk>
wrote:

>Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
>Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
>How stupid!

Also the fact they get hit, shows either, thats what its like (100km/h
battles at 1000m range) they can't do any better, or they SUCK
BAAAAAD, and they would get their butts kicked because they are
tactical bufoons.

What I mean is, why not stay 1 lightsecond away from your enemy, fire
at him, he fires at you, your 'FTL' scanners detect him firing and
where his wepon will be in 1 sec (if lightspeed), so you have oooh say
1 second to move, tell your computer to move out of the way of that
and any other approaching weapon fire, and whaddya know you will never
get hit!!!

SO WHY DON'T THEY DO THAT?!?!?

They could ease in closer and closer till the less manueverable ship
starts geting hit, regardless of firepower, ie: one of those fiighters
in DS9 could have taken out an a capital ship IF IT WAS FASTER/MORE
MANUEVERABLE, because it would never get hit, and it would hit its
target.

I'LL TELL YOU WHY:

Because they suck, they fight at 100km/h speeds because they can't do
any better

OR
Phasars have VERY short effective range (ie: they degenerate) vs their
firepower

OR
The ships are both tremendously confident and think they will win
without a doubt, (this is tactical idiocy, since 1 of them has the
possibility of a guarenteed kill, so they might aswell play on the
limits)

OR
Their FTL scanners suck and would be tactically (combat) useless and
are only good for spotting M-class star systems, ie: they rely on
spectral vision and other normal passive sensors in combat.

OR
GIVEME ANY OTHER REASON

Mark Burland

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Andrew P Street wrote:
>
> This is SO CHILDISH!
>
> Star Trek and Star Wars aren't real, you know. Arguing who would destroy who
> in a space battle is a little bit pointless as THEY DON'T EXIST! THEY'RE BOTH
> WORKS OF FICTION MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS THAT DON'T OVERLAP!


Shhhhhh. It's a Startrek vs Star Wars newsgroup, that's the whole point.
It's fun seeing how worked up people get.

Mark Burland

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Carl Seutter IV wrote:

>
> Mark Burland wrote:
>
> > Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
> > Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
> > How stupid!
>
> Head on confrontations are the classic battle.The effect of closure is
> exploited here. Weapons have a seemingly longer range in this kind of
> attack.

OK here's my point. When two ships leave Warp from 2 different planets,
they always appear along the same axis, exactly the same. Why doesn't
one ship come at a different angle, along the Z axis?

s146...@umassd.edu

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

In article <3484c77a...@news.wave.co.nz>, cof...@arkon.co.nz.DELETTHIS (Coffey) writes:

>Also the fact they get hit, shows either, thats what its like (100km/h
>battles at 1000m range) they can't do any better, or they SUCK
>BAAAAAD, and they would get their butts kicked because they are
>tactical bufoons.

Tactically challenged, yes...bufoons, no.

>
>What I mean is, why not stay 1 lightsecond away from your enemy, fire
>at him, he fires at you, your 'FTL' scanners detect him firing and
>where his wepon will be in 1 sec (if lightspeed), so you have oooh say
>1 second to move, tell your computer to move out of the way of that
>and any other approaching weapon fire, and whaddya know you will never
>get hit!!!

This was done in ST:TOS "The Ultimate Computer". M-5 took on several other
Constitution-class starships (4 I think) using Enterprise, destroyed one, and
crippled two others all without taking a single shot. However, after the
disasterous results of giving the computer that degree of control, it is no
longer allowed (the ST:TNG computer doesn't even compare to the M-5...the M-5
was like having a human brain directly hardwired into the ship, moving on a
thought). You need a human-like brain to accomplish this type of
reaction...that's why Data and Seven are capable of incredible manuevers
avoiding fire when in shuttles...enhanced reactions, computational abilities,
and biological ingenuity. Also why the Ssi-rusk battlecraft were extremely
difficult to hit...those life-essences were like having hard-wired brains at
work.

>They could ease in closer and closer till the less manueverable ship
>starts geting hit, regardless of firepower, ie: one of those fiighters
>in DS9 could have taken out an a capital ship IF IT WAS FASTER/MORE
>MANUEVERABLE, because it would never get hit, and it would hit its
>target.

Only if you assume that the targetting of the attacking ship is NOT able to
compensate for such. Remember, the E-D computer could track a 2m long object
moving at warp from anywhere in an entire solar system, target, and destroy it
within 15 seconds. That's spotting and targetting a tiny object in an enormous
volume of space in a miniscule amount of time.

>Because they suck, they fight at 100km/h speeds because they can't do
>any better

SW is no better in this regard...worse actually in most capital ship conflict.
The DS trench is a prime example as is the Devastator/Tantive IV conflict.
Besides, there are explanations for why warp attack no longer occurs in TNG (it
WAS the norm in TOS). The multi-layered warp bubble now utilized disrupts
phaser/disruptor energy altering course of the beam and/or significantly
weakening it.

>Phasars have VERY short effective range (ie: they degenerate) vs their
>firepower

Doubtful...low stun settings can be fired from orbit through atmosphere with NO
problem during TOS. TNG is much more powerful, capable of vaporizing comets on
minimal setting.

>The ships are both tremendously confident and think they will win
>without a doubt, (this is tactical idiocy, since 1 of them has the
>possibility of a guarenteed kill, so they might aswell play on the
>limits)

Possibly, but that has NO connection to technical aspects. Imperials tend to
do the same because of their overconfidence (see the destruction of the
SSD Executor as a prime example).

>Their FTL scanners suck and would be tactically (combat) useless and
>are only good for spotting M-class star systems, ie: they rely on
>spectral vision and other normal passive sensors in combat.

If both have FTL sensors capable of this, you reach a stalemate with each ship
able to outguess the other until the range is too insufficient for response
time. Besides, at close range, there is little benefit to be gained by FTL
sensors over LS sensors. At great range, FTL allows the ship to avoid easily.
Thus combat must be close to eliminate this factor. If, however, the opponent
LACKS FTL sensors, they cannot defend against distance attacks or warp speed
manuevers (see the Battle of Maxia for example as well as TOS episodes "Elaan
of Troyius" and "Journey to Babel"). Here FTL sensors are the advantage,
tactically.

Doug Fortunato


Lars P. Ormberg

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

Coffey wrote:

> What I mean is, why not stay 1 lightsecond away from your enemy, fire
> at him, he fires at you, your 'FTL' scanners detect him firing and
> where his wepon will be in 1 sec (if lightspeed), so you have oooh say
> 1 second to move, tell your computer to move out of the way of that
> and any other approaching weapon fire, and whaddya know you will never
> get hit!!!

But he's following the same strategy. If we were throwing water ballons
at each other from fifty yards, we could both avoid being hit. But
eventually one of us would have to get brave.



> Because they suck, they fight at 100km/h speeds because they can't do
> any better

Tactical useage of STL engines involve speeds in excess of .5c

> OR


> Phasars have VERY short effective range (ie: they degenerate) vs their
> firepower

Phasers have 300,000 kilometre effective tactical ranges. Light travels
about 300,000 metres per second. That's ten lightseconds.

> OR


> Their FTL scanners suck and would be tactically (combat) useless and
> are only good for spotting M-class star systems, ie: they rely on
> spectral vision and other normal passive sensors in combat.

Their FTL scanners located a warp-nine torpedo casing 5 minutes before
it arrived in "The Emissary" (TNG).



> OR
> GIVEME ANY OTHER REASON

Can't off the top of my head.

--
Lars Ormberg mailto:la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

Let the Grand Opening Commence! The University of Lars is now up and
running at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/. Laugh, cry, learn...avoid
doing such things and instead visit the University of Lars. From
Pictures to Science to Comedy to Politics, just like real University
expect for all the tuition and teachers and tests and labs!

James Grady Ward

unread,
Dec 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/3/97
to

~~~~ wrote:
>
> >
> >A SW ship is no match for any ST ship.
>
> You are quite correct. Trek ships use subspace weapons (phasers,
> photon torps) and communications. Star Wars uses EM weapons like
> lasers and sub-light weapons like proton beams (or whatever that was
> that Luke shot into the first deathstar)
>
> Hell, a Trek ship can even move out of the way of a firing laser if it
> wanted to (since it could detect the firing laser at subspace speeds).
>
> With the possible exception of the deathstar's primary weapon, all of
> ST's technology far exceeds that of SW. On that point however, there
> is no Star Trek technology that can explode a planet. Lay waste to
> it's entire surface area, perhaps, but not explode a planet.

Well what would the Genesis device do to a planet if it got caught in
the effect? May not explode it, but would leave the planet useless
for a good while at the very least.

And of course, there is Soran's missle from the first TNG movie. One
would think that exploding a star is a bit overkill, but it will get
rid of the planet.

Steve Sunshine

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

We are expanding our Star Trek site and would like to invite you to partner
with us.

We are Rock Mall Trivia Challenge [ http://www.rockmall.com ]. We have over
12,000 trivia questions in over 100 categories and Star Trek is one of our
more popular categories. Please come and test your Trek-knowledge.

We have just added a Link Partner Program and are looking for Star Trek
sites for inclusion (it's free so I am not trying to squeeze a buck out of
you). When you get to the Star Trek Trivia Page all the details are there.
The added exposure to your site will dramatically increase your traffic and
you can send some traffic our way too.

Also if you would like to contribute some new questions to the Star Trek
Trivia Challenge we would greatly appreciate it.

The Rock Mall Trivia Challenge has asked over 20 million questions over the
past two years and is growing at a phenomenal rate.


Thanks
Steve
Rock Mall
http://www.rockmall.com
suns...@rockmall.com

Chris Taylor Jr.

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Well someone does not have a clue in light mechanics

Do you have any idea how far a Light Second is ??

I will tell you Take the Circumference of the earth at the Equator
Multiply that by SEVEN Ie one Light Second
Not Diameter but CIRCUMFERANCE.

Secondly One Second is not enough time to move 13.5 million metric tons.

SW SHIPS CAN NOT BY ONSCREEN DATA EVEN APPROACH THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
There Sub Luminal speeds are likely based on onscreen data limited to under
10% generous to more likely 5% c

While ST ships can attain a sublight speed of 98% c .98 c

Chris
http://www.nerys.com/

Steve Sunshine

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Robert Skinner

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, James Grady Ward wrote:
>
>> Why would we want to DOWNGRADE the weapons on the ST ships to the
>> wimpy SW weapons?
>
>SW weapons have been proven, yes, PROVEN to be THOUSANDS of times more
>powerful than Trek weapons. Live with it.
>
Um... NO!


--
Fleet Admiral Robert Skinner
Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. Apocalypse NCC-95000
Fleet Admiral of the Zeta Fleet
Fleet http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/2750/
Personal rob...@yeoman.softnet.co.uk
Starfleet admiral...@yeoman.softnet.co.uk
Wayne Poe wrote in message ...

Coffey

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:31:23, pc...@gamgee.cc.flinders.edu.au (Andrew P
Street) wrote:

>This is SO CHILDISH!
>
>Star Trek and Star Wars aren't real, you know. Arguing who would destroy who
>in a space battle is a little bit pointless as THEY DON'T EXIST! THEY'RE BOTH
>WORKS OF FICTION MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS THAT DON'T OVERLAP!

This isn't China either, spouting your idealistic opinions about what
shall and shant be conversed about, wont achieve jack-shit.
Actually why do we bother comparing and commenting on Sci-Fi stuff in
reference to reality? How many times have you ever watched a movie
and thought, hey wouldn't that be cool, that would be neat to have,
you are thinking in relative to your own real life. Isn't REAL LIFE
just as unlikely to cross the paths of Sci-Fi, as Sci-Fi is coming
into contact with other Sci-Fi

At the end of the day who gives a shit about what shall and shant be
talked about, I just find it funny that people will say oh gee that'll
never happen 2 diff. universes, but at the same time talk about how
it'd be cool to own an X-wing, or how amusing it would be to own a pet
Rancor, or if there was some Ewoks in the zoo, or what you'd do all
day if you had your own holo-deck... or whatever tickles your
imagination.

Coffey

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 01:01:54 -0700, "Lars P. Ormberg"
<la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>Coffey wrote:
>
>> What I mean is, why not stay 1 lightsecond away from your enemy, fire
>> at him, he fires at you, your 'FTL' scanners detect him firing and
>> where his wepon will be in 1 sec (if lightspeed), so you have oooh say
>> 1 second to move, tell your computer to move out of the way of that
>> and any other approaching weapon fire, and whaddya know you will never
>> get hit!!!
>
>But he's following the same strategy. If we were throwing water ballons
>at each other from fifty yards, we could both avoid being hit. But
>eventually one of us would have to get brave.

So you are saying the fire control system is relative to arm-launched
water bombs?

Nope, one of us would be faster that one would win, regardless of
shielding and firepower, (providing it has 'some').


>> Because they suck, they fight at 100km/h speeds because they can't do
>> any better
>
>Tactical useage of STL engines involve speeds in excess of .5c

Errr... WHEN, and IF SO why not do it all the time in the manner I
said and they would WIN every time.

>> OR
>> Phasars have VERY short effective range (ie: they degenerate) vs their
>> firepower
>
>Phasers have 300,000 kilometre effective tactical ranges. Light travels
>about 300,000 metres per second. That's ten lightseconds.

HEHEHE, have another coffee mate, or get back to this tommorw when you
wake up.

>> OR
>> Their FTL scanners suck and would be tactically (combat) useless and
>> are only good for spotting M-class star systems, ie: they rely on
>> spectral vision and other normal passive sensors in combat.
>
>Their FTL scanners located a warp-nine torpedo casing 5 minutes before
>it arrived in "The Emissary" (TNG).

Torpedo's can be shot down, and DAMN easy with SW torps!, have you
seen how maneuverable those suckers are!!! Something like 1000+ G
turns.



>> OR
>> GIVEME ANY OTHER REASON
>
>Can't off the top of my head.

I know you can't.

Coffey

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 20:07:03 +0000, Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk>
wrote:

>Carl Seutter IV wrote:

To be polite to one another?

T McDonald

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

In article <348511F2...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>,

Lars P. Ormberg <commodo...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>Phasers have 300,000 kilometre effective tactical ranges. Light travels
>about 300,000 metres per second. That's ten lightseconds.

I don't mean to be picky particularly on such a silly thread, but the
speed of light is 300,000 km/s or 300,000,000 m/s.


But you may just be trolling me.


Steve Sunshine

unread,
Dec 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/4/97
to

Wayne Poe

unread,
Dec 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/5/97
to

STAR WARS FANS:

Tired of Trekkies spouting the same rhetoric about how inferior Star Wars
tech is to Trek?

Tired of Trek vs. Wars web sites that are decidely pro-Trek?

Then check out The ULTIMATE Star Wars Vs. Star Trek FAQ at:

http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html

The most comprehensive, fact filled document on the subject ever produced.
Pulled from over two years worth of posts on the Usenet! Check out the
FACTS for once, not Trekkie propaganda!


Smiley

unread,
Dec 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/5/97
to

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Coffey wrote:

:On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 20:07:03 +0000, Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk>


:wrote:
:
:>Carl Seutter IV wrote:
:>>
:>> Mark Burland wrote:
:>>
:>> > Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
:>> > Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
:>> > How stupid!

If you watch "Sacrafice of Angels" the fleet encounter doesn't begin like
this.

Chris Inchauste
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smiley:
Keeper of the "Way Cool Bible"
Defender of Luna
Founder of all that is Karlsruhe
Owener of "The Story of the Great War"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where the blood flows like water..." --Mackensen, Lord of the Wastelands
"Destruction is Good, Chaos is Good!" --Susano, Lord of Destruction
"I created you, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP!" -Susana, Lord of Creation
"Now, where did I leave THAT pathetic excuse for a universe?"
--Multiverse, The Lord of All.
"You're time is up, come with me." --Essen, Lord of Death
"I could give you another life, but..." Emden, Lord of Birth
"As I've already told you, GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
--Emmich, Lord of the Paradises
"Why was *I* made the Lord of Law?" --Imbila, Lord of Law
"<shrugs> At least *I* didn't get Law." Koln, Lord of Crime
"Now count, before I get angry..." --7734, Lord of Numbers
"Damnit, I am not the secretary of the gods!"
--Qwerty, Lord of Typing
"What can I say... I *like* my work!" --Talaris, Lord of Torture
"Let me know your greatest desire." --Senna, Lord of Pleasure
"Damnit Talaris, I'm sick of cleaning up after you..."
--Kin'sa, Lord of Medicine
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Taylor Jr.

unread,
Dec 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/5/97
to

Well I will admit that I am biased to trek although I love Both a lot

I went to the web site in question figuring ok a SW biased site but maybe
some logically would follow
Well the VERY FIRST comment dissappointed me a great deal
Here it is in all it glorified bull shit

We show the amounts of power required to take a cold asteroid to near the
melting point of iron. We are using iron as asteroids are largely made up of
iron, We have good data for solid iron, and iron is easier to melt/vaporize
than rock, making the values conservative.
Starting with a 5 meter diameter asteroid-
Volume of asteroid- 65 m^3
Mass of asteroid- 515,090 Kg
Heat Capacity of iron 447 j/kg K
Initial temp of asteroid- 2 K, normal for objects in space.
Final temp of asteroid- 1580 C, or 1853 K
Energy required to raise the material to the above temp: 427 GJ
Assuming a TL bolt is 1/10th of a second, this means a power of 4270 GW.

He forgets so much
Number one we do not know the actual dimensions of the asteroid.
Ok here he gives a control example 5 meter diameter.
But what we do not know is whether the weapons SW has could do this
We see a rock blow up
NOT VAPORIZE but BLOW up
We know not what it is made of what is its structure what is its density.
IS IT SOLID/ Honey COmbed / Hollow or a mix of all three
The likely hood of it being pure IRON or even close is to small to consider
MOST ROCKS in space are big snow balls.

And as he said in a galaxy far far away maybe IRON is not so common there
Maybe the rock was made of clay or maybe it was made of platinum who knows

ANy comments about power based on that rock blow up scene are pointless
because
there is not even remotely enough data.

I will post more as i explore this site

I to have a LOGIC based SW Vs ST that I try my hardest not to bias either
way

Check it out at http://www.nerys.com/ click on the obviuos link

Chris
http://www.nerys.com/

Wayne Poe wrote in message ...
>

Michael Wong

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

>> Because they suck, they fight at 100km/h speeds because they can't do
>> any better

>Tactical useage of STL engines involve speeds in excess of .5c

On paper, yes. In every episode of Star Trek I've ever seen, no.

>> Phasars have VERY short effective range (ie: they degenerate) vs their
>> firepower

>Phasers have 300,000 kilometre effective tactical ranges. Light travels


>about 300,000 metres per second. That's ten lightseconds.

On paper, yes. In every episode of Star Trek I've ever seen, they
close to within ten kilometers before opening fire on another ship.

>> Their FTL scanners suck and would be tactically (combat) useless and
>> are only good for spotting M-class star systems, ie: they rely on
>> spectral vision and other normal passive sensors in combat.

>Their FTL scanners located a warp-nine torpedo casing 5 minutes before
>it arrived in "The Emissary" (TNG).

You don't need active scanners to locate a warp-nine torpedo casing-
it is obviously an active device, and is therefore producing energy
emissions which can be detected by passive sensors.

Besides, I've previously theorized that the Picard Maneuver proves
that Star Trek FTL sensors are not accurate enough to actually TARGET
anything- they appear to be capable of tracking general location and
direction and speed but not capable of tracking so precisely that a
target lock can be obtained. Otherwise, the Picard Maneuver wouldn't
work.

leper_messiah

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

Photon Torpedoes have a range of 3,500,000 kilometers for midscale
detonation yeild, which forces me to agree with you.
Mike leper_...@msn.com


Coffey wrote in message <3484c752...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:56:08 +0000, Mark Burland <mbur...@aic.co.uk>
>wrote:
>


>>Do you know what my biggest problem with the battles in ST is?
>>Whenever two ships come against each other they are always nose to nose.
>>How stupid!
>

Wayne Poe

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Chris Taylor Jr. wrote:

> I went to the web site in question figuring ok a SW biased site but maybe
> some logically would follow
> Well the VERY FIRST comment dissappointed me a great deal
> Here it is in all it glorified bull shit

Go back to impersonating people, you incredible idiot.

> But what we do not know is whether the weapons SW has could do this We
> see a rock blow up NOT VAPORIZE but BLOW up We know not what it is made

Nope, the asteroids were VAPORIZED. No pieces of the asteroids went flying
away, nothing.

> even close is to small to consider MOST ROCKS in space are big snow
> balls.

yup, I go to the museum all the time and look at snowballs on display
under the heading "meteorites."

> And as he said in a galaxy far far away maybe IRON is not so common there
> Maybe the rock was made of clay or maybe it was made of platinum who knows

Maybe its made of assholes who can't understand what they read?

Misanthrope

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

Wayne Poe wrote:
>

> Check out the FACTS for once, not Trekkie propaganda!


Wow, you found some facts in two works of FICTION. I'm impressed.

Misanthrope

Wayne Poe

unread,
Dec 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/6/97
to

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Misanthrope wrote:

> Wow, you found some facts in two works of FICTION. I'm impressed.

Another dork that thinks s/he has to point out Trek and Wars is
fiction. I'm impressed.


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages