Author Topic: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica  (Read 34862 times)

universeboy4

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« on: May 20, 2013, 01:24:56 pm »
Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

(discussion is which would win in a fight, not which one you like more)

I'm gonna go for Star Trek most powerful, then Star Wars, then Battlestar Galactica.

Battlestar gets blown in half by which ever of the other universes fires a shot first, then Star Wars gets it's ass handed to it by the Borg :-)

Discuss.
Proud leader of the [DSA] Deep Space Alliance.

Czorio

  • Founder
  • Residential nutbag
  • *
  • Posts: 685
    • Youtube Channel
"If you're in an equal fight, your tactics suck."

http://www.youtube.com/user/czorio4

dracorotor

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 360
  • I personalize my gun
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2013, 02:47:26 pm »
"I'm gonna go for Star Trek most powerful" compared to the one with 4 different Death Stars, a fleet of star-eating planetoids, trillions of un-borgable droids, weapons that can't be blocked by phasing borg shields (Both SW and BSG mostly use projectile-type weapons that, in ST canon, kill borg easily), a solar-system killing gravity gun and rockets which cause supernovae?

If you're pitting the borg from ST, the SW wins. You need Trek's inventive federation crews, not their mindless drones, to overcome their technological inferiority to the SW universe.
"'What the h**l are you doing you mother******s?!!11'
I Gasped it was................. Dumbledoor!!!1"

Thadius Faran

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 963
  • Leader of the S.D.I and CEO of 301st industries
    • 301st Corp
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2013, 02:52:57 pm »
Borg would be desintergrated by

A. Death Star

B. Sun Killer

C. Galaxy gun

D. Super star destroyer

E. Force sapping device

F. Republic mega fleet

G. The Katana fleet

H. Luke Skywalker

So Star wars wins.
If your going to use military force you ought to use overwhelming military force. All war is immoral and if you let that bother you your not a good soldier.

blazingsentinal

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • Capt. Recin "Blaze" Aeron of the IUN
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2013, 02:59:10 pm »
Why exactly is this in meta instead of regular off-topic?

But anaway star wats would wipe the floor with trek, for all the reasons stated above.

kaptnkrunch

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 571
  • Full Violocity ahead. With all violence and speed.

universeboy4

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2013, 03:31:53 pm »
I throw in species 8472.

'nuff said.
Proud leader of the [DSA] Deep Space Alliance.

Strait Raider

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
  • It's "Strait", as in the body of water.
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2013, 05:27:18 pm »
Why exactly is this in meta instead of regular off-topic?

Moved.

Of note on "Turbolasers", (the main ship weaponry in the Star Wars universe) it seems to be that these are, despite the nomenclature, some manner of contained plasma weapon. (and indeed seem to be quite similar to "lightsaber" blades) So the assertions in the ST v SW video are groundless! :P

Based on footage of Star Destroyers vaporizing asteroids, it is estimated that one of a Star Destroyer's main turbolaser shots has a yield on the order of 4000 Terrawatts, about 4 times the yield of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This seems to agree with the assertion that sustained fleet bombardment would essentially vaporize the surface of a planet.

I can't recall where I was going with this...

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2013, 06:06:24 pm »

Based on footage of Star Destroyers vaporizing asteroids, it is estimated that one of a Star Destroyer's main turbolaser shots has a yield on the order of 4000 Terrawatts, about 4 times the yield of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This seems to agree with the assertion that sustained fleet bombardment would essentially vaporize the surface of a planet.

I can't recall where I was going with this...
Star Trek cannon mentions that Federation Planets have Planetary Shields. Before anyone brings up Vulcan in the Dominion War it was explained that the defences on Vulcan hadn't been upgraded for a while.
I have decided to take a step back from the argument about turbolasers being lasers and moved on to explaining that turbo lasers are not going to work well against Star Trek Ships.

Star Trek ships (From UFoP) are much more manuverable than ships in Star Wars. Ships in Star Wars rely on close range broadsiding to fight. It is noted that Star Trek ships have demonstrated the ability to take evasive actions at FTL speeds and their weapons have much more range than those on Star Wars.

Phaser- Travel time= instant
Turbolaser- Travel time = Not instant
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

Thadius Faran

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 963
  • Leader of the S.D.I and CEO of 301st industries
    • 301st Corp
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2013, 06:44:11 pm »
Ahh but the limited weapon count on Federation ships hinder them considerably. The fighter armadas launched from star destroyers would anhialate the Enterprise. Before you say "oh the shields on the enterprise are immune to fighters" Tie bombers and destroyers are equipped with Protons torpedoes. So they would indeed damage the Enterprise. The Enterprises limited weapons will always be her downfall. Even Hammerheads with fighter support that are 2000 years old compared to Star destroyers could win. Why? They have anti cap guns that are Turbo lasers.
If your going to use military force you ought to use overwhelming military force. All war is immoral and if you let that bother you your not a good soldier.

Strait Raider

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
  • It's "Strait", as in the body of water.
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2013, 07:37:16 pm »
Analysis of ship-grade phasers indicates that they have an output on the order of 300 TW, an order of magnitude less than an ISD's Turbolasers. Right, that's where I was going with that.

That being said, the biggest of the gulfs I see between SW and ST is in FTL speed. While Trek ships take years to cross a small section of the galaxy, SW vessels have galactic travel times measured in hours for military-grade hyperspace drives.

dracorotor

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 360
  • I personalize my gun
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2013, 09:33:09 pm »
I'll give Trek their ability to warp into a system's outer edge and launch an unseen warp-speed broadside of romulan torpedos, but Star Wars has planetary shields too (we see one used to shield the death star 2) so you'd need to close to transporter range (In SW canon, we know that teleportation tech DOES penetrate SW shields) to do landings, and when they drop out of warp for that, planetary defense weapons and huge orbital fleets will negate that advantage. Add to that the fact that proton torps are much smaller and more numerous that photon torps, and that turbolasers are horribly powerful, and it's not a winning proposition.

How I see it, the only way to win is to bring in Romulans, Dominion, Cardasians, Klingons, Federation, FIRST Federation (Does anyone else remember how easily they could kick the TOS Enterprise's ass?) and Species 8472 (No way the borg will agree to a teamup, so forget their help), and hope you can ally with the Corporate Sector or Rebel Alliance fleets to deal with imperial armadas. With the federation ships, that sort of alliance is brokerable, and is their best chance of winning. They're scientists and diplomats, mostly, even in many of the more warlike races.
"'What the h**l are you doing you mother******s?!!11'
I Gasped it was................. Dumbledoor!!!1"

Thadius Faran

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 963
  • Leader of the S.D.I and CEO of 301st industries
    • 301st Corp
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2013, 10:14:56 pm »
 But we have the Clone wars era. The giant armies of the CIS would decimate the ST universe.
If your going to use military force you ought to use overwhelming military force. All war is immoral and if you let that bother you your not a good soldier.

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 771
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2013, 10:35:38 pm »
Ahh but the limited weapon count on Federation ships hinder them considerably. The fighter armadas launched from star destroyers would anhialate the Enterprise. Before you say "oh the shields on the enterprise are immune to fighters" Tie bombers and destroyers are equipped with Protons torpedoes. So they would indeed damage the Enterprise. The Enterprises limited weapons will always be her downfall. Even Hammerheads with fighter support that are 2000 years old compared to Star destroyers could win. Why? They have anti cap guns that are Turbo lasers.
And all of the Federation military ships are armed with Phasers, the most versatile weapon you can find in space. Maquis got some Excelecier Class grade phasers on their little fighters.

Fighter Armadas, if you are saying 5000+ Tie fighters attacking then maybe the phaser banks will run out of batteries before they are all dead, may be. they would be able to shoot them down from afar with a phaser spread(phasers are set to a setting that basically creates a moving phaser wall of destruction). The Tie Fighters have Minimal shielding.

Analysis of ship-grade phasers indicates that they have an output on the order of 300 TW, an order of magnitude less than an ISD's Turbolasers. Right, that's where I was going with that.

That being said, the biggest of the gulfs I see between SW and ST is in FTL speed. While Trek ships take years to cross a small section of the galaxy, SW vessels have galactic travel times measured in hours for military-grade hyperspace drives.
http://st-v-sw.net/STSWcompare.html
Read this. Before you pull your authority (aka Stardestroyer.net) I'll shoot it down with an ion cannon that only a Star Trek Ship would detect( Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Refering to the Big ion Cannon that the ISD did not notice: , Star Trek (every single episode that involved a normal weapon being shot at them)" Sir the locked [insert name of weapon here] on us!") Star Wars ships onboard sensors suck, (Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi) "That Death Star's shields should be down." (they aren't) They CAN'T DETECT SHIELDS!
Every Single Star Trek Episode
"Sir They are Raising shields and locking weapons."
"Raise shields, Evasive actions"
Tell Me when the ISDs were able to dodge or detect anything. Even when it's sitting on them.
http://st-v-sw.net/videos/borg.gif
and this is not even FTL they can dodge things FTL.


On paper Battlestar Galactica seemed like a decently armed ship but i've just watched a couple episodes...Battlestar suck. that's what the episodes told me. they are taken out by fighters and they haven't even fought a base star yet.


STAR TREK HAND PHASERS AUTOTARGET!


Automatic Post Merge: May 20, 2013, 10:47:33 pm
I'm not just talking about FTL speed. SW ship combat is all sub-light speed while Star Trek has Warp speed strafing. Even without warp strafing their ships are extrordinarily agile at sub-luminal speeds. 

Phasers out range Turbolasers so my plan: stay out of range of turbo lasers and fly circles around enemy while shooting till they die.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 10:47:33 pm by Commander Jackson »
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

dracorotor

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 360
  • I personalize my gun
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2013, 11:23:26 pm »
TIE fighters have no shields other than particle/laser shields like every little tug and space-bound cargo container. Nothing to defend against blasters, but possibly defensive against relatively weak laser-based phasors. If it were, it wouldn't be very defensive, but who cares. Star Trek ships still need to target agile little fighters that don't have set evasive patterns but extremely skilled and infinitely disposable pilots.

Two problems with your approach:

1) Fighting at warp (warp is FTL, a speed at which SW ships can't fight) won't work. you'll have miliseconds to target SW ships if you want to do fly-bys. By the time you've turned around and come back, the empire has jumped halfway across the quadrant.

2) Your judgement of their sensor abilities is off. Just like Star Trek (for instance, one of the last episodes of Voyager) there are some shields and techs that some sensors can't detect, and most of your evidence is from the under-equipped rebels, no less. Sure the rebels couldn't detect the specially-arranged planetary shields, and early X-Wings only detect weapon locks after they've been established, byt the empire did detect the ion cannon, but discounted it. They're bad about discounting forces they see as insignificant, but their weapons and sensor tech are built with of tens of thousands of years of warship development behind them.

Like I said, Trek isn't out of the fight, but you have to accept that they're going in out-gunned, out-manned, and out-paced. They need to rely on their abilities to build strong alliances, push their ships well past the stops, and out-think their opponents. And like was pointed out before, they also need to hope they get the empire, not the clone-wars era droid armies or the plucky and resourceful rebellion (or, god help them, one of the other SW universe superpowers, like the Chiss Ascendancy, the Sith Empires or the Yuuzhan Vong).

I DO want to be in the room when the Hutts and the Ferengi start bargaining for the scrap after the big battle, though.

...

Oh, and then the Daleks show up and exterminate everyone.
"'What the h**l are you doing you mother******s?!!11'
I Gasped it was................. Dumbledoor!!!1"