Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by The Condor, Dec 31, 2005.
there is an older star trek vrs. wars discussion
look at post three
I know but that is old. Not new like this one. I thought you or someone copied this and it was doing better. Also, there is a thing called the edit button so you don't have to have double or triple posts.
Star Wars all the way! W00tage!
You know, none of you are looking at anything but the surface here. I shall cover some of the things you have already discusses in greater detail as well as adding soem points of my own.
1: The Borg.
First off, let me just say that you lot know NOTHING about the Borg. No they can't always adapt to everything (the best example of this being melee weapons such as Worf's dagger in first contact) but they don't have to. If a jedi came on board a borg cube the Borg would just trap him in those nifty force feilds of thiers that the borg can walk thorugh.
2: Star Trek ships vs Star Wars ships.
You all don't seem to realise that Star Trek weapons have significantly longer ranges than Star Wars weapons. If they had to the Federation ships could just dance into range, fire torpedoes and dance back out again, cutting any fighters who came at them to pieces with flank fire from thier phaser arrays. Read these two articles for more details.
This website is a lot better in my opinion. It actually tries to make proper assesments whereas the fools on Stardestroyer.net are a bunch of drooling tards to know next to nothing about Star Trek.
4: Ground combat
I'm suprised no one's talked about this yet. Star Trek may not have lots of fancy ground vechicles such as AT-STs and AT-ATs but as far as I'm concered they don't need them. Most of those vechicles are in fact useless. AT-STs can be busted open with logs and AT-ATs are so slow that a Star trek ship in orbit of the planet could just send a phton torpedo down there (with pretty good accuracy as is shown in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier when the Enterprise fires on that creature prentending to be a god and scores a direct hit with the first torpedo). You wouldn't even need that actually, a torpedo from a shuttle craft would do just fine.
None of you seem to realise that Star trek has small combat capable vechicles as well. In Star Wars it seemes it only takes one hit to take a fighter out of commision but in Star Trek later on you see star ships fireing on shuttlecraft and while they can't hold up to it for long I'd like to see a pilot get even cose to that level of performance out of a TIE fighter, an X-wing or some other small Star Wars craft. I can imagine a craft like the Delta Flyer with it's Borg inhanced weaponry and sheilds taking out scores of Tie-fighters. BTW, the reason Star Trek ships don't have fighters is because Star Trek tactical doctrines are diffrent, very diffrent. Even agressive races like the Klingons don't use them, obviously because it was too dangerous for pilots and because the recsources used to build fighters and hanger bays would be better spent on giving ships more armraments of it's own.
6: Cloacking devices.
Star Trek has a huge advantage here. You say the Death Star could take out Federation vessels with it's super laser easily. That's true but what happens when half a doesen Romulan warbirds suddenly decloack around it? Also, very small ships can have cloacking devices as well. Read this article.
As for me I'm with Star Trek all the way.
ah no most trekies think star wars ships have less range in every thing but star wars ships are much faster have longer operational ranges longer range weaponry and much more powerful weponry yet might i agian note that these two subjects are both in thier own seperate and fictional reality and that they were made for what they are not based on other sci fi programs
you see they are basing star wars on the movies it says there isn't protection from various things in imperial armor well think why would george lucas include these parts of the internal costume in the props it doesn't make any sense to do so right to find this info you would go to the offiacial web site were it lists the specs. for all the equipment.
as for the the dozen warbirds the other weaponry on the death star has enough fire power to destroy several worlds on its own
The second Death Star, if completed, would have featured over 30,000 turbolaser batteries, 7,500 laser cannons, 5,000 ion cannons and 768 tractor beams.
these are the stats for the second death stars weaponry besides the super laser which can fire several times in a minute
Star Wars is much better than Star Trek.
Altough I am tempted to vote for the fourth option.
I would think "Worst. Poll. Ever." would be better.
Well, sorry I didn't think of that for my usually witty last poll answer . However, back on topic I surely thought more people would like Star Trek than Star Wars.
http://www-fi3.starwreck.com/ a reallly, really funny parody of Star Wars and Star Trek (they fight each other) the effects are quite impressive.
IMHO the two are difficoult to be compared (something like comparing Oranges and Apples) Star Trek is an Science Fiction series while Star Wars is more of an Epic Tale based in the future.
I Loved to Play Knights of the Old Republic but IMHO Star Wars movies are just way too lame to be amusing
The First Star Trek just lacked the filmmaking technology it needed
Star Trek: The Next Generation was by far the Best of the series, the Majority of the Cast was great (though two really sucked) and the special effects were finally decent enough to be cool instead of hilariously retaded.
The other Star Treks lacked mostly on the story side.
I've been watching the New Battlestar Galactica for some time now and it lookes quite nice
Bingo. In Star Trek, the spacecraft weaponry is so devastatingly powerful and accurate, that once you manage to defeat an enemy force defending a planet in orbit, you don't need a whole hell of a lot of ground troops to take the planet, you just bombard it for a matter of hours. Evidence: the Dominion War.
Of course, actually holding a planet is another matter entirely, as you can't garrison with ships and you invariably face guerrilla resistance fighters.
Actually ST v SW doesn't just clear up SW falsehoods. It also clears up some ST ones like the "lasers can't hurt our ship" one and the "bullets and the borg" one.
Also, that Star Wreck thing is actually Star Trek vs Babalon 5 .
I don't really like either one, although Star Wars is better.
I'd like to see the Death Star go up against a Borg Cube.
Star Trek absolutely pwns Star Wars.
I've never seen a X-wing jump to warp 9.975, or, several times the speed of light. Nor have I seen anything except the Death Star's megalaser that could rival the power of quantum weaponary.
Ultima, what the hell are you talking about? The Intrepid class ship (which is the craft you must be refering to as traveling at that speed) is somewhere around a destroyery/light cruisery ship. Most good shuttlecraft can only make it up to somewhere around warp six althoguh you are right in saying that SW fighters have absoultely no faster than light capability at all.
Yeah, I know it's not really a good comparison, but the Star Trek ships seem to go from fighter straight to cruiser, nothing inbetween. The only thing that seems to fight the size of an interpid-class starship are those pod-shaped republic cruisers, like the ones on hoth. But even that's smaller than a intrepid class starship, i believe.
But Star Wars ships can only go 1x the speed of light.
Most Star Trek ships can go at least 5x.
I thought we'd already had this thread before, probably star wars though.
This thread is stupid. Both are fiction and therefore we must not pay too much attention to these works.
It's stupid debating whether "fictional universe A's ships could beat the **** out of fictional universe B's ships," but it's far from stupid debating which is better.
Which has better actors/writers/directors/storylines/etc?
Which has better characters?
Which has better depth?
Which is set in a more believeable universe?
Which is more enjoyable?
Separate names with a comma.