Author Topic: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica  (Read 42822 times)

DarthRoar

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #210 on: February 23, 2014, 10:04:44 am »
Wasn't this supposed to be about Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica not Warhammer stuff.

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #211 on: February 23, 2014, 10:39:21 am »
We decided to change the topic because it didn't seem fair for BSG.
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

zmclapp

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Star Trek!
« Reply #212 on: February 23, 2014, 10:55:46 pm »
The Star Trek Universe would win against Star Wars because:
- Star-fleet has mystical powers that make everything work out alright.
- Multi-Phasic shields impervious to laser fire.
- So many ships. The Borg have thousands, Species 8472 have thousands of one shotters, the Dominion have thousands, the alpha      quadrant species have thousands. The list goes on.
- Extreme maneuverability for even capital ships. They could dodge turbo-laser fire.
- Trans-Phasic torpedoes.
- Time ships.
- Planet eating black holes.
- Shooting stuff at warp.
- Wormholes.
- Kamikaze capital ships when damaged. "RAMMING SPEED".
- Re-modulating the shields, phasers or whatever isn't working.
- Shooting through bulkheads with transporter-rifles.
- No exhaust ports!
- Secondary backups.
- Holograms.

People might say the force negates all this. It doesn't. I doubt even Darth Vader could force-strangle 1000 people, and if he could I really doubt he could strangle a hundred thousand drones from one cube or trillions of people. And he cant strangle holograms.

Star Trek forever.

What people say is "go back to the first 9 pages to have your arguments discounted." XD
Oh, and as for them always having everything work out, just know that what times the sith don't win the jedi do.

"In my experiance there is no such thing as luck." -Obi-wan "Ben" Kenobi

Holy Thunder

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 655
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #213 on: February 24, 2014, 07:23:37 am »
Star Treks biggest strengths is most definitely their speed. As well as those mystic powas. But then, Star Trek only covers a small part of space. Star Trek might have a hundred thousand ships, but Warhammer 40k has billions.
The Imperial Guard alone has 2 000 000 000 000 000 000 members. Star Trek just doesn't have the numbers or industry. Also, most of Star Trek is focused on diplomacy, while all the others have armies at least in the millions.

(P.S. Those Phase-rifles must be added to Blockade Runner)


But how many of those can be gathered into one place with their slow FTL? How could you possibly hope to marshal such a number into any meaningful organization?   And how many are excess inefficient crew or marines that are wortheless unless the 40k crew could actually board the ST ships? Which would happen pretty much never.
--Trespassers will be promptly riddled with bullets and other unpleasant projectiles.

--Survivors will treated with apologies, steak dinner, and a VIP tour of our facilities.

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #214 on: February 24, 2014, 11:20:01 am »
@Deployment time: Yes, they can take years to reach places, but time flows a little weird in the Warp(some may take mere moments to jump while others has taken centuries). And the Imperium covers most of the galaxy, so...

@Boarding: Yes, all Imperial starships have marine crew, but they are also maintenance crew. And all starships have really accurate teleporters(accuracy down to within 5m), but are you counting on other races too?
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #215 on: February 24, 2014, 12:10:08 pm »
Here, let me pick this to pieces for you ;D

The Star Trek Universe would win against Star Wars because:
- Star-fleet has mystical powers that make everything work out alright.

This is only true for the Enterprise, a capital-Flagship carrying a veteran flag crew; typically on missions of diplomacy and exploration - not war. The Enterprise has been destroyed/nearly destroyed on several occasions when in battle conditions, and is not invulnerable (Generations, The Wrath of Khan).

- Multi-Phasic shields impervious to laser fire.

According to a throwaway line from Riker when the E is engaged by a small ship from a backwater/backwards planet. Energy is energy, the line doesn't make sense unless it's a mis-spoken "Don't they know we're immune to their laser fire?"

In any event, SW uses turbolasers, which behave nothing like the lasers shown in ST and are clearly a totally different technology from a universe far, far away.


- So many ships. The Borg have thousands, Species 8472 have thousands of one shotters, the Dominion have thousands, the alpha      quadrant species have thousands. The list goes on.

Using the entire ST universe, yes, the Borg et.al. have many ships. SW likely has more Imperial Star Destroyers (25,000) than there are ships in the Alpha quadrant.

- Extreme maneuverability for even capital ships. They could dodge turbo-laser fire.

I see no evidence to support that this is true.

- Trans-Phasic torpedoes.
- Time ships.
- Planet eating black holes.

With which I counter: ion cannons, Death Stars, and World Devestators

- Shooting stuff at warp.

We were just discussing this; it only happens in a few episodes and never in the war sequences. Clearly there is a reason that the characters in-universe aren't doing it all the time (possibly that the phasers/torpedoes have to have shields dropped* to fire; and dropping shields at warp is a questionable thing to do).

*IIRC - that's why their shields have 'frequencies' - they're like the prop-interrupter on old WWI planes that kept the machine gun from firing while the prop was in the way. Find the frequency an enemy ship is using and you've got a key to blow them up.

- Wormholes.
- Kamikaze capital ships when damaged. "RAMMING SPEED".
- Re-modulating the shields, phasers or whatever isn't working.

And SW has this stuff too?

- Shooting through bulkheads with transporter-rifles.

That seems like it was a one-off thing. If not, it's likely that the SW-tech disrupts ST transporters; basically everything else does.

- No exhaust ports!

The DS 2 didn't have them either. To be fair though, I don't think that ST has any ship that could exploit that weakness in the DS 1; a Runabout/shuttle would have been shot down easily enough going up against fighters and AA-fire, and the fighters they do have aren't common enough to get used/to the location in time.

- Secondary backups.
- Holograms.

Not sure what the advantage of that is?

People might say the force negates all this. ...

I don't. It adds some fuel to the fire, but really it's the numbers that negate all that.

Star Treks biggest strengths is most definitely their speed. As well as those mystic powas.

Confused. SW definitely has higher mobility - Hyperspace allows them to travel from end to end of the galaxy in a few days (if not the minutes we see on screen). Even high-warp routinely requires the E to take days/weeks to get to a destination in one small portion of the trek galaxy. And they definitely don't have mystic powas, unless you're using Q or something.

But how many of those can be gathered into one place with their slow FTL? How could you possibly hope to marshal such a number into any meaningful organization?   And how many are excess inefficient crew or marines that are wortheless unless the 40k crew could actually board the ST ships? Which would happen pretty much never.

Their FTL isn't really any slower than ST's, it's just unreliable. They wouldn't need to marshell all of their forces; if a tenth showed up they'd still outnumber anybody else. And they've got teleporters for their troops, most of which are soldiers, crew are neigh uncountable.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 12:16:40 pm by Me2005 »
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

zmclapp

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #216 on: February 25, 2014, 11:49:17 pm »
Pretty thorough. Thanks for summing up those first 9 pages  ;)

One question springs to my mind though. If 40k is fantasy, doesn't that make it ineligible? I mean, I can name a dozen different fantasies that kick the crap out of SW. The whole war between SW and ST is "which sci-fi would kick the crap out of the other if they ever met," so shouldn't we only be using sci-fi's if we are going to diverge from that?

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2105
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #217 on: February 26, 2014, 11:28:52 am »
One question springs to my mind though. If 40k is fantasy, doesn't that make it ineligible? I mean, I can name a dozen different fantasies that kick the crap out of SW. The whole war between SW and ST is "which sci-fi would kick the crap out of the other if they ever met," so shouldn't we only be using sci-fi's if we are going to diverge from that?

I'd also consider SW & ST sci-fantasy, though I'd agree that 40K is more fantasy than either ST or SW. Depending on your personal sliding-scale of "how science-y is sci-fi required to be to qualify," various 'sci-fi' universes will or will not be fantasy to you. For example, every universe that utilizes some form of FTL is currently fantasy; we have no evidence that FTL travel will ever be possible. So that puts Avatar ahead of just about every other popular sci-fi in terms of 'realness'. But then, we also have little evidence of other sapient life in our plane of the universe, so any sci-fi involving human-level aliens or AI would also be fantasy.

And when you axe those two things, you quickly find that almost nothing you know as science fiction isn't also a fantasy. Strictly speaking, science fiction should be basically just the stuff Michael Crichton used to write - fictional stories about mostly plausible science gone awry (Jurassic Park is the most famous, but he wrote many others that would also qualify), almost all of which take place on Earth and don't even discuss orbit. But that isn't fun, we like stories about the stars and exploration, so it's become accepted that "Sci-fi" is fantasy that takes place among the stars.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #218 on: February 26, 2014, 11:39:42 am »
Stay on topic?
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #219 on: February 26, 2014, 11:47:09 am »
People have argued that SW is science fantasy while ST is science fiction thus both cannot be compared.  *shrugs*.

ST is a tv show that takes place 200-400 years into the future.  The main characture are explorers.  The Federation is an Utopian civilization in which humanoid life forms have united together and all speak the same language.


SW is a series of movies that take place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.  Main characture are rebels fighting a galactic empire for freedom.  The Galactic Empire appears to be dominated by humans and is led by an emperor with lightning powers.


This post is probably biased but I tried to remain neutral.

Automatic Post Merge: February 26, 2014, 11:50:03 am
It seems rather convienent that everyone appears to speak the same language in ST.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 11:50:39 am by Commander Jackson »
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

Nautilus81

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #220 on: February 26, 2014, 03:10:28 pm »
It seems rather convienent that everyone appears to speak the same language in ST.

They don't, actually. It's all thanks to giant universal translators installed in every ship, station, and on every planet. They way it works is that it interprets every work spoken and converts it to the listener's native language.

2 episodes of DS9 show this pretty clearly:
'Sanctuary' (Season 2 ep. 10) - The Skrreeans, aliens that came through the wormhole, were not understandable for most of the 1st act. Sisko determines this is because the Universal translator is having problems with interpreting their speech patterns, which is resolved later as they keep talking.

'Little Green Men' (Season 4, ep. 8 ) - Quark, Rom and Nog crash land on Earth in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. After being captured by the American authorities, they discover that they cannot communicate with the Humans, since universal translators haven't been invented yet.
"Peace through superior cruiser design." -Unknown

Soundslikedelicious

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #221 on: July 04, 2016, 09:22:34 pm »
Cough cough *Q* cough cough *Doud*...

Voltaire

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 183
Re: Star Trek vs Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
« Reply #222 on: July 05, 2016, 09:21:45 am »
I'd also consider SW & ST sci-fantasy, though I'd agree that 40K is more fantasy than either ST or SW. Depending on your personal sliding-scale of "how science-y is sci-fi required to be to qualify," various 'sci-fi' universes will or will not be fantasy to you. For example, every universe that utilizes some form of FTL is currently fantasy; we have no evidence that FTL travel will ever be possible. So that puts Avatar ahead of just about every other popular sci-fi in terms of 'realness'. But then, we also have little evidence of other sapient life in our plane of the universe, so any sci-fi involving human-level aliens or AI would also be fantasy.

And when you axe those two things, you quickly find that almost nothing you know as science fiction isn't also a fantasy. Strictly speaking, science fiction should be basically just the stuff Michael Crichton used to write - fictional stories about mostly plausible science gone awry (Jurassic Park is the most famous, but he wrote many others that would also qualify), almost all of which take place on Earth and don't even discuss orbit. But that isn't fun, we like stories about the stars and exploration, so it's become accepted that "Sci-fi" is fantasy that takes place among the stars.

I would probably agree that to a certain extent it is a sliding scale, and that at best you can say that the content is predominantly one or the other.   I would also agree that many stories lorded as science fiction often have some fantasy element.

However, arguing that "FTL means its fantasy" would not persuade me or others, as the whole point of science fiction is that is speculates on the basis of current scientific understanding of what may be possible, and what society and technology might be like if those hypothesise were true; the fiction part takes care of the speculative nature of it. 

For me telekinesis (TK) and telepathy (TP) are where I tend to feel the Trek universe wanders into fantasy territory.  TK for example seems very unlikely especially if you think it comes from the brain; every action has an equal and opposite reaction remember.  TP might be possible at a very basic level, with line of sight etc, but we are talking very low power EM, many many times smaller than the earths magnetic field.   Of course, we do know of creatures that have evolved to sense magnetic fields (see cryptochrome).

Anyway, just my 2 cents.