Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Master Gunner
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 am UTC
Location: Canada, eh?
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Master Gunner » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:58 pm UTC

Actually Star Trek ships have the same fields for the same reasons, and I believe work in the same way. However, I sadly must agree that the transport plan wouldn't work well, as it is my understanding that any shield capable of blocking weapons fire can easily block a transporter beam. I think the best bet at taking out the Death Star is with photon torpedoes (which I have always got the feeling that Star Trek has underestimated the power of) along with probes modified to be carry antimatter. These Probes and Torpedoes would approach the Death Star at warp speed, and drop out right before hitting the death star, so they hit it at a significant fraction of the speed of light (there has been no indication that matter at warp can interact with matter in normal space), and carry the matter-antimatter reactions (hopefully) a significant distance into the death star, causing massive damage. Then of course there are quantum torpedoes, which derive their explosive energy from a zero-point vacuum, which again I think the Star Trek universe has vastly underestimated the power of.

That should hopefully at least disable the Death Star, however that still leaves the problem of dealing with smaller ships, as the above strategy would only work well as a surprise attack against a relatively stationary target.

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:26 am UTC

Genesis project->Genesis torpedo-> STar Trek Win. End Of Story.
and if thats not enough,
Enterprise>>unfinished star destroyer

fixed. There is no time travel in star wars

and then there's informational security:
Star wars computers are on par with 1970s computers: THEY SUCK!!!!!
the targeting comps can't hit a 2 meter aperture in a line of sight situation.
Enterprise hacks death star (like R2D2 did so easily; death star predates firewalls/informational security, apparently)->Enterprise Uses "overload" function (everyone knows that large evil main plot devices have them; it's not a trope, it's a law) or tells targeting crew to target star destroyers->Enterprise wins again.
Also, note that force powers require a specific person to target; note how Vader can't force-choke the X-wing pilots attacking the death star.
On a more serious note, the reason behind this debacle is that Star Trek is a much better developed, more thought out universe than Star Wars. Multiple TV series contain more info that 2 trilogies of movies. (none of the rest is canon)

ps: as far as destroying planets goes, the federation has multiple ships capable. and as far as extinguishing suns goes, Trilithium. BITCH.
also, everything has a wavelength. ask De Broglie. Physics: It WORKS Bitch!
DarkFortuneKookie wrote:Why do Make-up commercials exist?

pushpork
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby pushpork » Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:35 pm UTC

Star wars computers are on par with 1970s computers: THEY SUCK!!!!!

its true. some one said star wars has better tech because they can cross the whole galaxy in a matter of hours, but if you look at the melenium falcons engineering, and even the death star, everything is wires and can burn out. Star trek uses 'isolinear chips' etc, which are much more on par with quantum computing and the such. From a science point of view Star Trek Wins.
Plus non-corporeal beings seem much more prevalent in the Star Trek universe.

User avatar
Neuman
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:37 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Neuman » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Ironmon1 wrote:Genesis project->Genesis torpedo-> STar Trek Win. End Of Story.[1]
and if thats not enough,
Enterprise>>unfinished star destroyer

fixed. There is no time travel in star wars[2]

and then there's informational security:
Star wars computers are on par with 1970s computers: THEY SUCK!!!!![3]
the targeting comps can't hit a 2 meter aperture in a line of sight situation.[4]
Enterprise hacks death star (like R2D2 did so easily;[5] death star predates firewalls/informational security, apparently)->Enterprise Uses "overload" function (everyone knows that large evil main plot devices have them; it's not a trope, it's a law) or tells targeting crew to target star destroyers[6]->Enterprise wins again.
Also, note that force powers require a specific person to target; note how Vader can't force-choke the X-wing pilots attacking the death star.[7]
On a more serious note, the reason behind this debacle is that Star Trek is a much better developed, more thought out universe than Star Wars.[8] Multiple TV series contain more info that 2 trilogies of movies. (none of the rest is canon)[9]

[1]If this is true, then why doesn't the Federation just fire Genesis torpedos at Borg Cubes?
[2]It doesn't matter how far back in time they go, they'd still have to get to a shipyard to destroy an unfinished Star Destroyer. That could take decades, given that not only do they not know where they are, Federation ships are, as mentioned previously, insanely slow. They would also have to deal with the shipyard's security. They could, of course, go back to before the Empire took power and prevent it from happening. That would help everyone out.
[3]Untrue. Star Wars computer technology is so advanced that a ten year old on a desert planet in the middle of nowhere can build a self-aware, humanoid robot. I'm unaware of that happening in the 70's
[4]Though extreme sensor jamming.
[5](a)R2D2 was inside the Death Star. It's likely all he needed was a password. (b)R2 had been belonged to the Rebel Alliance since it's creation. He had decades of experience.
[6]The Death Star gunners aren't morons.
[7]This is a fair point, though the range is incredible once he has a target.
[8]This is a matter of opinion, of course.
[9]Depends on who you ask. If it's the owners of the two franchises, than this is wrong. Star Trek is just the TV series' and movies, whereas LucasArts accepts the books as canon, except when they contradict the movies.

pushpork wrote:
Star wars computers are on par with 1970s computers: THEY SUCK!!!!!

its true. some one said star wars has better tech because they can cross the whole galaxy in a matter of hours, but if you look at the melenium falcons engineering, and even the death star, everything is wires and can burn out.[1] Star trek uses 'isolinear chips' etc, which are much more on par with quantum computing and the such.[2] From a science point of view Star Trek Wins.
Plus non-corporeal beings seem much more prevalent in the Star Trek universe.[3]

[1]They manage to make ships orders of magnitude faster then the most advanced Star Trek ships using stuff that looks like junk, and you're considering that a Trek win?
[2]Microwave ovens are significantly more advanced than barbecue grills. Therefore, chicken cooked in a microwave will taste better, correct?
[3]That doesn't really matter. The super-powered god-beings hardly ever do anything.
Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:48 pm UTC

The reason the federation don't use Genesis against the Borg is that the Borg, being adaptable little bastards, might reverse engineer it. Imagine: Borg cube approaches planet, fire one torpedo->borg have a brand new, fully developed planet.
And C3PO is a (human) Clown in a shiny suit, the tin man's second cousin. As you admit, an emo boy built him from spare parts in spare time. This, and the ridiculously short time it takes Star Wars ships to go places are examples of how Star Wars was created like one creates a fantasy: create loose guide lines, and stick with them whenever convenient; Use screen time to develop character and plot, or (in the case of the second trilogy) to show off special effects. That is the difference: the Star Trek universe is a science (for the most part; I'm not counting Q, because he's Deus Ex Machina) fiction universe, where Star Wars is a Fiction universe with "Advanced" (read deus ex) technology. in most places. They tried to put more Science into it (midi chloriants?), but that was so lame I say it Never Happened. If it did, the crew of Enterprise can make some more of those self-aware nanites they got in one episode, and program them to kill midi chloriants (for that matter, why not anything else that go in Enterprise's way? another brocken item...). The Force would DIE.

The reason I don't count the books as cannon (LucasArts just counts them for money/publicity value) is because of the huge numbers of authors who disagree on many things. If you don't see the problem in that, look at the universe of marvel comics: retcon out the ass, inconsistencies, rule of awesome taken so far past making sense that it becomes rule of stupid...all sorts of crap like that.

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:18 am UTC

Hey guys, heres a thought, instead of randomly waving around claims based on barely thought out perceptions, why don't we actually step back and logically analyze this whole thing.

First things first, If we are going to rationally work through the evidence, we need to determine what evidence counts. The approach that makes the most sense (to me at least) is to follow the rough definitions of canon for each universe that both the owners and most respected fan communities in charge of compiling information about the universes (i.e. the wiki's) on both sides have taken. That is that for Trek, only the movies and TV shows are canon and for Wars all officially licensed works are canon, but with some internal hierarchy of authority.

With that out of the way, lets get to the real question at hand. By and large, the majority of the milky way of Star Trek seems to be a a roughly similar level of technology, including the federation. What I mean is, except for the borg, most races in the Milky way seem to be about on par with the federation, technologically speaking, or a bit lower. The exception to this is the borg, but I'll get to them in a minute. Among these races, spaceships up to about 2km in length (though usually less) with overall firepower in the 100+ megaton (a useful unit for measuring weapons) range and defenses to match. Battles are usually seen fought at ranges of a few dozen Km, at speeds one would expect for those ranges (i.e. no one fights that close at relativistic speeds). Strategically speaking, warp (and the speeds that implies) seems to be the norm, with top speeds that allow for crossing the galaxy in the better part of a century.

Now the borg are a little tougher. Their ships are bigger (though not outrageously so) and tougher. They can still be defeated by a concentration of force of regular ships, it's just hard. Now, Alot is made of the borg's ability to "adapt" their shields to be more effective against their enemies' weapons. While this is and interesting ability, it's not a recipe for impenetrable forcefields. The thing about borg shields is that while most people act like they are effective before adaptation and impenetrable after, it is actually the opposite. They are completely useless before adaptation, and simply useful afterwords. Look at the first encounter in "Q Who?". One phaser blast was able to destroy 1/5th of the cube before adaptation. Even after adaptation, in "First Contact" one good volley from the Federation flotilla in the right place was able to destroy the cube. They would tip the balance in Trek's favor if it were close, but it's not.

The Galaxy Far Far Away (GFFA), having been a more or less coherent galactic civilization for over a millennium, is entirely at roughly the same level of technology. Space ships vary in size from tiny, one man fighter a few meters in length to Warships 20km in length (though mobile space stations that are much bigger are possible) with overall firepower in the Petaton range for larger warships (and defenses to match). Battles ranges are anywhere from several dozen km (considered suicidal for large warships) to several light minutes (heavy turbolasers have an effective range of ~10 light minutes) at comparably varying speeds. Strategically speaking, Hyperdrive speeds allow fast ships to cross the galaxy in a few hours, while slower ships can take up to a few days.

So Star Wars ships are 10x as large, 1000x (or more) as fast, with weapons 1,000,000,000x as strong. This isn't even remotely a fair fight.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:23 am UTC

20Km? where the hell did you get that?
As far as I know, Star Destroyers are 1Km, and Super Star destroyers are 3 Km (or was it 3 and 9?)...
anyway, not nearly 20 Km. These Star Destroyers are relatively modern (the super Star Destroyer id definitely modern), so putting in 20Km petaton-capable warships is Contradictory to the movies in the first level of implication. If you want to claim the Death Star has petaton capability, I'll let it slide, but do you realize that a petaton is about 450 TONS of mass equivalence?
even assuming 100% efficient weapons, that's just retarded (like whatever author thought it up).
If you want a sensible universe that has things on that scale, try WarHammer 40,000. They have ships that would make your 20Km, petaton-capable Star Destroyer look like a puppy.

ps: shooting at things 10 light minutes away is simply pointless if you're facing an opponent that can move (like a space ship)...(hint: you're shooting at where the ship was 10 minutes ago, and the ship will have 10 minutes more from the time you shoot to move around and get out of the way. Which means if you're not dumb enough to go in a straight line, you're pretty safe)
pps: Are the gunners on your Star Destroyers trained by the same people who train Storm Troopers? 'Cause if they are, all of the emperor's ships combined couldn't scratch the Enterprise. Even at point blank range. This is known as the Storm Trooper Effect.

Edit: looks like the Super Star Destroyer was Retconned to 12 Km at some point. that's still not 20.
from http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Super_star_destroyer :
...an early prototype for a new generation of heavy warships, was 12 kilometers in length...

thats all the info on length given.
DarkFortuneKookie wrote:Why do Make-up commercials exist?

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Ironmon1 wrote:20Km? where the hell did you get that?

All of my numbers for Star Wars were taken either from the official site or high level official reference materiels (e.g. The Incredible Cross-Sections books).

Ironmon1 wrote:As far as I know, Star Destroyers are 1Km, and Super Star destroyers are 3 Km (or was it 3 and 9?)...
anyway, not nearly 20 Km.

No, that's completely wrong. The Star Destroyers most commonly seen in the Original Trilogy were Imperial-Class, usually Imperial-II, Which the official Databank Lists as 1,600m (1mi). Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts, the most common of the so-called Super Star Destroyers, on the other hand, is listed at 19km (11.8mi). The same official databank Gives it over 5,000 turbolasers. Now, Assuming that that these guns, on the Empire's premiere warship, Darth Vader's flagship, are at least as powerful as a 20-year old transport from the beginning of the last war, that's 5,000 guns at 200 Gigatons each: 1 Petaton, not counting concussion missiles or fighters/bombers.

Ironmon1 wrote: These Star Destroyers are relatively modern (the super Star Destroyer id definitely modern), so putting in 20Km petaton-capable warships is Contradictory to the movies in the first level of implication.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Since your mistaken impression of the size of the ships in the movies was smaller than the facts, somehow the firepower numbers must be wrong?

Ironmon1 wrote: If you want to claim the Death Star has petaton capability, I'll let it slide, but do you realize that a petaton is about 450 TONS of mass equivalence?
That's the great thing about good Science fiction, they can take technology that seems impossible and outrageous to us, and if they need it for the story, they can explain it in a few lines and that's all there is to it. Most warships in the GFFA use hypermatter reactors for the energy needs. They get around the issue of having to cart around the mass of millions of tons of fuel by using hypermatter, which is basiclly just exotic mater suspended in hyperspace. The effect of this is similar to the Star trek ships using subspace fields to make things less massive to reduce the size of the engines needed.

Ironmon1 wrote: If you want a sensible universe that has things on that scale, try WarHammer 40,000. They have ships that would make your 20Km, petaton-capable Star Destroyer look like a puppy.
Yeah, and a Single Culture GCV could WTFPWN the entire IoM all by itself. There's always a bigger fish.

Ironmon1 wrote: ps: shooting at things 10 light minutes away is simply pointless if you're facing an opponent that can move (like a space ship)...(hint: you're shooting at where the ship was 10 minutes ago, and the ship will have 10 minutes more from the time you shoot to move around and get out of the way. Which means if you're not dumb enough to go in a straight line, you're pretty safe)
Imperial targeting computers can, completely blind, hit actively evading fighter sized targets with ~=50% accuracy. The problem of hitting small fast targets immediately with no data is not quite the same as hitting large targets far away with a time delay, but it's similar.
Ironmon1 wrote:pps: Are the gunners on your Star Destroyers trained by the same people who train Storm Troopers? 'Cause if they are, all of the emperor's ships combined couldn't scratch the Enterprise. Even at point blank range. This is known as the Storm Trooper Effect.
If by the storm trooper effect you mean "don't shoot to kill the rebel leaders because Darth Vader will choke you if he doesn't get to interrogate them" then I don't think there'll be much of a problem. Heck, Leia as much as said that after the Death Star escape.

Ironmon1 wrote: Edit: looks like the Super Star Destroyer was Retconned to 12 Km at some point. that's still not 20.
from http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Super_star_destroyer :
...an early prototype for a new generation of heavy warships, was 12 kilometers in length...

thats all the info on length given.
It was never as short as you seemed to think. Try reading the articles on any of that "new generation of warships."
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:05 am UTC

rebel leaders? Han? Chewbacca? C3P0? Not in A New Hope! I'm pretty sure they wanted them dead...
anyway, as far as interrogating Leia, He tried that, remember? And failed, so he ordered her execution...because he wanted to keep her alive to interrogate her?

As for the targeting problem problem, you don't seem to understand: at 10 light minutes, you're guessing where the ship will be 20 min from now. which, for a FTL vessel, is a anywhere in a sphere of radius much greater than 20 light minutes.

Basically, these universes are, like all other fictional universes, powered by Author ex machina. The art is in making it plausible. Now, evidently, what's plausible to some is just bullshit to others. Hence our disagreement. I could write a small book about how all the little exploits found in obscure places in Star Trek cannon would murder everything in the star wars universe, and about how the so called "expanded universe" is such a pile of shit, but that would just be me flaming, and besides, it would be a horrible waste of several days of my life. that is why I will not quibble details any further, and leave it at this: I think Star Trek (and, for that matter, 40K) smell a lot less like retcon (even the changes from trilogy one to prequel sicken me) and bullshit than Star Wars, which admittedly reeks slightly less than the marvel Universe.
DarkFortuneKookie wrote:Why do Make-up commercials exist?

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:29 am UTC

Ironmon1 wrote:rebel leaders? Han? Chewbacca? C3P0? Not in A New Hope! I'm pretty sure they wanted them dead...
anyway, as far as interrogating Leia, He tried that, remember? And failed, so he ordered her execution...because he wanted to keep her alive to interrogate her?
Ok, excuse me, that time they wanted them to get away so they could follow them to the hidden rebel base. Seriously, Leia said this, in the movie.

Ironmon1 wrote:As for the targeting problem problem, you don't seem to understand: at 10 light minutes, you're guessing where the ship will be 20 min from now. which, for a FTL vessel, is a anywhere in a sphere of radius much greater than 20 light minutes.
Actually, with FTL sensors, the lag time is cut in half, and as I said, hitting a target with 10min old information is not a whole lot harder than hitting a target completely blind.

Ironmon1 wrote:Basically, these universes are, like all other fictional universes, powered by Author ex machina. The art is in making it plausible. Now, evidently, what's plausible to some is just bullshit to others. Hence our disagreement. I could write a small book about how all the little exploits found in obscure places in Star Trek cannon would murder everything in the star wars universe...
The whole point of my posts has been that no, you couldn't, at least not using canon. Just because something is written in flowery language ("Mighty enough to rend a planet to irrecognizable pieces, and scatter the pieces across the skies") or simply shown to us, instead of technical sounding (often made up) jargon ("A focused exotic particle beam with over 1038 joules of energy ") it is not any less true, and usually makes for a better story, unless you are just trying to convince your audience that what you are writing is science!

Ironmon1 wrote: I think Star Trek (and, for that matter, 40K) smell a lot less like retcon (even the changes from trilogy one to prequel sicken me) and bullshit than Star Wars, which admittedly reeks slightly less than the marvel Universe.
You don't seem to understand that the majority of this information is extrapolated from what was in the movies. The size of the Executor is based on the relative sizes of the ships in SFX shots from tESB. The power of the guns on these ships is based on the what's seen in the movies, and stated abilities from places like the novelizations of the movies (published back in the 70s) or reference books that the movie makers themselves used too! I'm not saying the saga doesn't change a little as it grows, but most of the retcons in EU material is to make poorly researched work fall more in line with the movies (this is a good example of that). And seriously? Star Trek is less retconned? So tell me, when did the Eugenics Wars take place? Who made first contact with the borg? What do klingon foreheads look like? What color is their blood? Can all vulcans mind meld, or only a few? Do they all go through Pon Farr, or just males? Is Zefram Cochrane From earth, or Alpha Centari? How many shuttlecraft does Voyager have?
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:46 pm UTC

...that time they wanted them to get away so they could follow them to the hidden rebel base. Seriously, Leia said this, in the movie.

point...

But I'm going to have to call bullshit on the 200 Gigaton figure being extrapolated from the movies: whenever the Death Star shoots down a fighter with it's anti-shipping weapons (note that it doesn't really have anti-fighter weapons; this was stated in the moive) the fighter makes a nice, tame explosion; there is no semi-relativistic shock wave of particles, the optical flare doesn't burn out anyone's eyes or sensors...And why would the shoot at reduced power? the shockwave/Flare would hurt the rebels much more than their well armored moon...
Also, if you have Star Destroyers capable of fireing Gigaton+ range shots repeatedly, why the hell do you need a Death Star? to destroy planets? (that's what they seemed to think it was for in the movies..and they thought that that was special, somehow)
If you have a Petaton capable ship, and it can fire once every few seconds, or once a minute even, you could knock a planet out of it's orbit and into the sun rather easily...no need to invest in a small moon.
As far as Star Trek retcon goes, I'm not going to try to justify or deny it, just say that it isn't as obvious to me (it's not like I've seen all of Star Trek) and so bothers me less...
There are [many] universes, all from SF books, that I like a whole lot better than ST or SW, because they were planned out ahead of time *COUGH* like ST and SW weren't *COUGH* and so are well-behaved
DarkFortuneKookie wrote:Why do Make-up commercials exist?

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:10 pm UTC

Ironmon1 wrote:But I'm going to have to call bullshit on the 200 Gigaton figure being extrapolated from the movies: whenever the Death Star shoots down a fighter .. there is no semi-relativistic shock wave of particles, the optical flare doesn't burn out anyone's eyes or sensors...And why would the shoot at reduced power?
I've always assumed reduced power => higher RoF. These are primarily energy weapons firing from banks of capacitors, if they don't charge up as much, they can fire faster. As for the shockwave, what pray-tell is going to transmit this shockwave in a vacuum? And any flare from the bolt striking the fighter does not necessarily have to be in the optical spectrum, and ev en whatever is can be filtered out by, well, filters over sensors or in canopies; remember, these fighters were designed to fight in environments where explosions like this are commonplace.

In actuality, the Gigaton figure was extrapolated from scaling up (relative to size) the capabilities of the light guns seen vaporising steroids in the hoth field in tESB. Many years ago, a fan calculated the minimum energy necessary to achieve the effects we see in the asteroid vaporisation scene based on the size of the asteroids on screen and their likely composition (both from real world data and secondary descriptions) and the results were consistent with other known weapons effects, like the BDZ (which I'll come back to in a moment).

Ironmon1 wrote:Also, if you have Star Destroyers capable of firing Gigaton+ range shots repeatedly, why the hell do you need a Death Star? to destroy planets? (that's what they seemed to think it was for in the movies..and they thought that that was special, somehow)If you have a Petaton capable ship, and it can fire once every few seconds, or once a minute even, you could knock a planet out of it's orbit and into the sun rather easily...no need to invest in a small moon.
No, you couldn't actually. At any rate, An Imperial Star Destroyer can devastate a planet all by itself. The procedure is called a Base Delta Zero. However, If a planet is protected by a planetary shield (a more comprehensive version of what we saw on Hoth), it creates a siege situation, requiring an entire fleet and a lot more time, during which relief could arrive. The Deathstar was the solution to that problem, as well as being an outright terror weapon. A normal BDZ reduced an undefended planet to uninhabitable rubble over the course of one or more hours; The Deathstar completely obliterated a completely defended and shielded planet in one shot.

Ironmon1 wrote:There are [many] universes, all from SF books, that I like a whole lot better than ST or SW, because they were planned out ahead of time *COUGH* like ST and SW weren't *COUGH* and so are well-behaved
Oh, I agree completely. Although, I feel I should mention that some of my favorites (Asimov's Foundationverse, Heinlein's Future History/Pantheistic solipsism multiverse, and nBSG ) were not planed out ahead of time and are, IMHO, some of the best SF ever written (though it remains to be seen how "well behaved" nBSG turns out to be).
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Ironmon1
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Ironmon1 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:44 pm UTC

"wave" might be a bit misleading...I was referring to a front of extremely high energy particles.
DarkFortuneKookie wrote:Why do Make-up commercials exist?

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:48 pm UTC

So, radiation then? I already covered that.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:25 am UTC

RIGHT! Here we go!
STAR TREK! And i have a lot of stuff to back this up (most of it is from the official star trek vs star wars site).
Before i start though, STAR WARS DOES NOT WIN BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!! Q and all forms of gods will not be counted here, Trek and Wars, although i cant remember a god in star wars... Also, this is the entire Star Trek universe vs the entire Star Wars universe. The Star trek universe is aparently bigger, but you relentless star wars fans are still convinced you can win. We shall see.....

1. Star wars weapons in space have a max range of about 3000 Km, but in startrek, the range is 20000 for phasers, and 5000 for torpedoes. Star wars turbolasers trade range and accuracy for sheer power, as the empires weapons are more powerful than that of star trek, but they would have to get damn close to use them. Phasers are not only also capable of locking on to things that are in motion, but to specific systems, such as, weapons, engines, and bridge, giving them a huge advantage over star wars ships.

2. Borg. This race assimilates other races and adds them to its huge empire. At the battle of Wolf 359, a single officer was assimilated from the Federation, and because of that, the Borg were able to destroy 39 Federation ships. What would happen if they assimilated an imperial officer? They also have the ability to adapt. If the death star destroyed one borg cube, then after a few more cubes had been destroyed, they would have adapted. Blasters as well would most probably be adapted to. Another lesser known ability of the the borg is to be able to actually assimilate ships. This happens in Voyager - Scorpion part 2, and Enterprise - regeneration, when a borg drone simply injected nanobots into the computer systems. with the ability to beam onto a star wars ship, the borg could simply assimilate everything onboard.

3. Species 8472 are completely organic, and were only stopped when technology from the borg was added to federatoion technology to vreate a hybrid torpedo. This race also has the power to destroy a planet, and this is almost always overlooked. The ships are about 100 meters long, small for star trek, and 6 (or 7?) linked up and fired a huge laser at a planet. Sure, it took about 5 seconds for it to be blown apart, but only 100 meters? When star wars needed a station the size of a small moon, which could be easily destroyed by a well aimed torpedo, out of range of the turrets on the death stars. So, overall, the species 8472 weapon is more powerful than the death star. It is also highly possible that there could be multiple of these weapons.

4. Phasers. Now, if there was a ground battle, star wars would win, no doubt there, but star trek is more space based, and the weapons they do have for ground combat are no match for anything star wars can throw at them. BUT! Phasers are a lot more complex than a standard E-11 blaster rifle. For instance, the blaster has two settings, stun and kill, but the stun setting appears to be very close range, and only lasts for about 5 minutes. A standard Voyager phaser has several settings, from "OUCH!" to complete disintergration. And this is where the Jedi come in. In actual fact, the jedi stand much less of a chance than many star wars fans think. In one episode of voyager, (no idea which one, but basicly, an alien 'ghost' starts taking over members of the crew,) Tuvok (taken over by the alien), announces that he has his phaser set to Wide dispersal and kill. No one contradicts him. But he does fire it on stun, and the full bridge crew and others (15 - 20 people) are all stunned simultaniously. The Jedi would not be able to block a wide beam, and it would be rather hard for them to dogde (invisions obi wan leaning back in matrix style while the phaser passes over his head... :P). Also, in a next generation episode, Q sends some of the crew to a planet, where data scans some aliens approaching them and says something along the lines of "they have weapons simlar to earths 18th centuary mustkets, range, 100 meters maximum."
To which riker replies "no match for our phasers!" Which suggests that phasers can shoot a few hundred meters at least.

5. Manourverability and speed. The star wars fans seem to say that light speed is faster than star trek, but, well, it is actually only the speed of light. Warp 4.8 is actually 111 times the speed of light, yes, one-hundred-and-eleven. and most federation ships can go upto warp 9. so i am pretty sure that star trek has the speed advantage. Also, Star trek ships are very agile, as you can see when the USS defiant (120 meters long, almost the size of a blockade runner, which is 150 meters) dodges in and out of enemy ships, something which i cant see the blockade runner doing....also, one of the funniest moments in star wars is when there are several

6. Other things include genral techonology, and unique to the universe stuff. Scanners in star wars have to be lifted by two men just to scan for lifeforms, but in star trek, a handheld scanner, called a tricorder, can scan for hundreds of meters and pick up almost everythingof interest.
Cloaking techinology as well, is available in both universes, the difference is, that in star trek, it can be held by a small mine no bigger than a meter sqaured each, but in star wars, an officer comments "a ship that size couldnt have a cloaking device!" referring to the Millenium Falcon.

So there we have it. Ive probably missed out some stuff, but unintentionaly, and there are a good few reasons why star trek would DESTROY star wars!

=/\=

User avatar
enk
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:20 am UTC
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby enk » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:50 am UTC

Spock22 wrote:Star trek ships are very agile, as you can see when the USS defiant (120 meters long, almost the size of a blockade runner, which is 150 meters) dodges in and out of enemy ships, something which i cant see the blockade runner doing....also, one of the funniest moments in star wars is when there are several


I lol'd...
phlip wrote:Ha HA! Recycled emacs jokes.

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:55 am UTC

Spock22 wrote:RIGHT! Here we go!
STAR TREK! And i have a lot of stuff to back this up (most of it is from the official star trek vs star wars site).
Before i start though, STAR WARS DOES NOT WIN BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!! Q and all forms of gods will not be counted here, Trek and Wars, although i cant remember a god in star wars... Also, this is the entire Star Trek universe vs the entire Star Wars universe. The Star trek universe is aparently bigger, but you relentless star wars fans are still convinced you can win. We shall see.....

As your post count is low at this point, and your username, I'll assume you joined specifically for this argument. I guess I'll have fun trying to refute your arguments. Size matters not. and if you only count the galaxy where it matters(SW galaxy, Milky way) the star wars galaxy is 20000 light years bigger.

1. Star wars weapons in space have a max range of about 3000 Km, but in startrek, the range is 20000 for phasers, and 5000 for torpedoes. Star wars turbolasers trade range and accuracy for sheer power, as the empires weapons are more powerful than that of star trek, but they would have to get damn close to use them. Phasers are not only also capable of locking on to things that are in motion, but to specific systems, such as, weapons, engines, and bridge, giving them a huge advantage over star wars ships.
Holy hell, ST weapons have long range. About targeting, though, SW lasers can be targeted at specific systems (shield generator domes, engines, bridge, etc.). what's the big deal? Furthermore, Star trek Phasers have an expected yield in the megawatt range. Shields and armor on star wars capital ships routinely take salvos in the terawatt range. Ship based phasers will do NOTHING against a star destroyer's hull.

2. Borg. This race assimilates other races and adds them to its huge empire. At the battle of Wolf 359, a single officer was assimilated from the Federation, and because of that, the Borg were able to destroy 39 Federation ships. What would happen if they assimilated an imperial officer? They also have the ability to adapt. If the death star destroyed one borg cube, then after a few more cubes had been destroyed, they would have adapted. Blasters as well would most probably be adapted to. Another lesser known ability of the the borg is to be able to actually assimilate ships. This happens in Voyager - Scorpion part 2, and Enterprise - regeneration, when a borg drone simply injected nanobots into the computer systems. with the ability to beam onto a star wars ship, the borg could simply assimilate everything onboard.

Here, I sort of think that the borg will act the same way against the Star Wars galaxy as they do against the Star Trek Galaxy. Problem being, I think shield and weapon technology are completely different between the two galaxies. In the Trek galaxy, both shields and weapons work by modulating shields. That's why the borg are so strong: they can easily find the right shield and weapon frequency of their opponents, and open fire with impunity. Star wars shields and weapons rely on pure brute force. Hence, I guess they would be like omnishields: they protect from any energy source thrown at them, regardless of frequency. As stated above in other posts too, transporter beams are easily blocked, or the borg cube in Wolf 359 would have assimilated all the attacking ships instead of wiping them out. Therefore, the borg would need to conventionally fight a ship and take down the shields before transporting themselves onboard.

3. Species 8472 are completely organic, and were only stopped when technology from the borg was added to federatoion technology to vreate a hybrid torpedo. This race also has the power to destroy a planet, and this is almost always overlooked. The ships are about 100 meters long, small for star trek, and 6 (or 7?) linked up and fired a huge laser at a planet. Sure, it took about 5 seconds for it to be blown apart, but only 100 meters? When star wars needed a station the size of a small moon, which could be easily destroyed by a well aimed torpedo, out of range of the turrets on the death stars. So, overall, the species 8472 weapon is more powerful than the death star. It is also highly possible that there could be multiple of these weapons.

If we are talking about pure destructive power here, nothing I've seen here can beat the sun crusher. A ship the size of a starfighter (think Y-wing) has the weaponry to destroy a star system and making the sun go nova. Furthermore, the sun crusher utilizes quantum-crystalline armor, allowing it to survive said supernova. Not even the highest-yield torpedo could hope to penetrate that armor. So far, the only known way to destroy it is to pilot it into a black hole.
4. Phasers. Now, if there was a ground battle, star wars would win, no doubt there, but star trek is more space based, and the weapons they do have for ground combat are no match for anything star wars can throw at them. BUT! Phasers are a lot more complex than a standard E-11 blaster rifle. For instance, the blaster has two settings, stun and kill, but the stun setting appears to be very close range, and only lasts for about 5 minutes. A standard Voyager phaser has several settings, from "OUCH!" to complete disintergration.

I really don't see how this helps the Star Trek Universe from winning.
And this is where the Jedi come in. In actual fact, the jedi stand much less of a chance than many star wars fans think.... The Jedi would not be able to block a wide beam, and it would be rather hard for them to dogde (invisions obi wan leaning back in matrix style while the phaser passes over his head... :P).
Actually I may agree with you here. Jedi hunters have been known to make use of weapons like sonic emitters and flechette launchers to incapacitate or kill jedi. It relly depends on who you face. If I were that jedi, I could do a few things though: First, I could force pull the phaser out of your hand. secondly, I could make you forget I was even there. thirdly,http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Force_Deflection. If I could mentally prepare myself beforehand, I could use force absorb and negate the effects of the phaser:
Wookiepedia wrote:Nejaa Halcyon, like other Jedi from the Halcyon family, had virtually no telekinetic ability under normal circumstances. However, he had a talent for absorbing energy, such as from blaster bolts or lightsaber blades. With this energy, Nejaa could perform the same telekinetic feats that most Jedi could accomplish normally.
. there are myrad ways that a jedi could get out of that situation.

Also, in a next generation episode, Q sends some of the crew to a planet, where data scans some aliens approaching them and says something along the lines of "they have weapons simlar to earths 18th centuary mustkets, range, 100 meters maximum."
To which riker replies "no match for our phasers!" Which suggests that phasers can shoot a few hundred meters at least.

And E-11B blaster rifles can shoot 300 meters. The DC-15A blaster rifle in use during the clone wars can shoot 10 kilometers. 100 meters is nothing.
5. Manourverability and speed. The star wars fans seem to say that light speed is faster than star trek, but, well, it is actually only the speed of light. Warp 4.8 is actually 111 times the speed of light, yes, one-hundred-and-eleven. and most federation ships can go upto warp 9. so i am pretty sure that star trek has the speed advantage.

Actually, in the Star Wars Galaxy, faster-than-light travel is commonplace. In some places, Star Wars ships are definitely faster than Star Trek ships. The distance from Tatooine(Outer rim) to Alderaan(core world) is approximately 60,000 light years. This trip took hours, maybe a day in the Falcon. A Star Trek vehicle, at warp 9.9, seems to travel about 21473 times the speed of light. To travel that same distance between Tatooine and Alderaan would take the ship ~2.79 years. The Falcon is also said to be twice as fast as a military starship; still unbelievably faster than any Star trek ship.
Also, Star trek ships are very agile, as you can see when the USS defiant (120 meters long, almost the size of a blockade runner, which is 150 meters) dodges in and out of enemy ships, something which i cant see the blockade runner doing....also, one of the funniest moments in star wars is when there are several

I don't think you finished that sentence, but I get the general idea. Even here, I think that Star Wars wins, just due to having smaller spacecraft with heavy weaponry. Anything in the Star Wars galaxy freighter size or smaller will be able to completely outmaneuver virtually anything Star Trek can throw at them. For example the TIE defender is 9.2 meters long. By comparison, a Bajoran raider is ~33 meters long. Both have fixed gun emplacements. The TIE defender can DANCE around the raider and take it apart at leisure. On the other side of the scale, the ships don't NEED to be maneuverable. Certain ships have point-defense lasers. Even if a ship starts lobbing torpedoes from max range (so far I've read over 3 million km) that leaves plenty of time for the lasers to track and destroy the missiles before they even come close.
6. Other things include general techonology, and unique to the universe stuff. Scanners in star wars have to be lifted by two men just to scan for lifeforms, but in star trek, a handheld scanner, called a tricorder, can scan for hundreds of meters and pick up almost everything of interest.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Scanner
Cloaking techinology as well, is available in both universes, the difference is, that in star trek, it can be held by a small mine no bigger than a meter sqaured each, but in star wars, an officer comments "a ship that size couldnt have a cloaking device!" referring to the Millenium Falcon.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_cloaking_device

Really though, a lot of what we're talking about has to do with how the people use the equipment. You could have the best equipment from both galaxies, but if you are an idiot, you will still lose. There are other questions too, like will stormtroopers be able to kill red-shirt ensigns? :) EDIT:But seriously, the mindset of the star wars galaxy is much more militaristic than the star trek universe. As far as I can tell, most of the Star trek universe rely on full confrontations to win a fight. The star wars universe will actually play dirty. Covert ops, insurgents, saboteurs, propaganda, you name it, they'll use it. Especially if they are fighting the empire.

So there we have it. Ive probably missed out some stuff, but unintentionaly, and there are a good few reasons why star trek would DESTROY star wars!

=/\=

Ah, that was fun. let's do it again sometime? :D

EDIT: I guess I forgot about my policy on what is canon and what is not. It is kinda simple: I use the wikis for each respective source, and anything that is canon there is canon in my mind. Q is out by popular agreement: If the continuum were allowed, I agree that the Star Wars galaxy wouldn't have a chance.
Last edited by hideki101 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:34 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:05 am UTC

Spock22 wrote:RIGHT! Here we go!

It's obvious you didn't bother reading the rest of the Thread, but you couldn't even bother reading the last exchange? the one that ended the freaking post right before yours? Seriously, at least read the last page of the thread before responding. I pretty much demolished all of your arguments before you even made them. Anyway...

Spock22 wrote:STAR TREK! And i have a lot of stuff to back this up (most of it is from the official star trek vs star wars site).
Um, there is no official vs. site. Anyone on the intertubes claiming to be that is either exaggerating (often for comedic effect) or lying. However, since you neglected to provide a link, we could just as easily assume it was a figment of your imagination. You'll notice I explained the canon policy I use a in my first post, a little further up the page. It's not only the official policy of both franchises, it's the most reasonable and widely accepted among fans.

Spock22 wrote:1. Star wars weapons in space have a max range of about 3000 Km, but in startrek, the range is 20000 for phasers, and 5000 for torpedoes.
Blatant lies. The Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections specifically cites effective ranges for turbolasers of 10 light minutes. Meanwhile, I defy you to show me an example of a single battle in Star Trek fought at more than a few dozens of Km.

Spock22 wrote:Star wars turbolasers trade range and accuracy for sheer power, as the empires weapons are more powerful than that of star trek, but they would have to get damn close to use them. Phasers are not only also capable of locking on to things that are in motion, but to specific systems, such as, weapons, engines, and bridge, giving them a huge advantage over star wars ships.
If by trade, you mean have both, then yes, they do. As for targeting, go watch ANH or RoTJ again. You know the A-wing that crashed into the bridge of the Executor? His wingman was right there with him, closing fast, but as soon as Admiral Piett ordered increased gun coverage of the bridge, a turbolaser picked it off with a shot at right angles to it's flight path, the most difficult way to hit it. On the other hand, Trek Ships had trouble hitting something as big the Defiant, moving much slower.

Spock22 wrote:2. Borg. This race assimilates other races and adds them to its huge empire. At the battle of Wolf 359, a single officer was assimilated from the Federation, and because of that, the Borg were able to destroy 39 Federation ships. What would happen if they assimilated an imperial officer? They also have the ability to adapt.
I'm just going to go ahead and quote myself here:
I wrote:Now the borg are a little tougher. Their ships are bigger (though not outrageously so) and tougher. They can still be defeated by a concentration of force of regular ships, it's just hard. Now, Alot is made of the borg's ability to "adapt" their shields to be more effective against their enemies' weapons. While this is and interesting ability, it's not a recipe for impenetrable forcefields. The thing about borg shields is that while most people act like they are effective before adaptation and impenetrable after, it is actually the opposite. They are completely useless before adaptation, and simply useful afterwords. Look at the first encounter in "Q Who?". One phaser blast was able to destroy 1/5th of the cube before adaptation. Even after adaptation, in "First Contact" one good volley from the Federation flotilla in the right place was able to destroy the cube.
It's worth pointing out that a single broadside from one destroyer is probably more powerful than the entire volley that took out the cube in FC. I'm going to completely let pass without comment your claims of beaming onto imperial ships and assimilating them, because there's no way I can address them without violating several of the board rules about civil discourse.

Spock22 wrote:3. Species 8472... [blah blah blah organic blah blah blah planet killer]
I'll simply point out that being organic does not make you inherently better (in fact, a strong argument could be mad that it makes you inherently worse), and that in terms of firepower, they're still on par (to within an OOM) with the rest of Trek. As for the planet killer, that it takes several seconds to do anything implies that it is some kind of funky chain reaction. I submit that their funky chain reaction beam is probably close to useless against planetary shields, which every important target in the GFFA has. So, any scenario involving S8472 will go something like this:
1. they show up in orbit of a seemingly defenseless planet, and start their planet buster link up thing
2. it splatters uselessly against the planetary shield
3. ground based turbolasers and ion cannons (think hoth here) vaporise a few organic ships
4. S8472 goes running with their tails between their legs back to fluidic space

Spock22 wrote:4. Phasers. Now, if there was a ground battle, star wars would win, no doubt there, but star trek is more space based, and the weapons they do have for ground combat are no match for anything star wars can throw at them. BUT! Phasers are a lot more complex than a standard E-11 blaster rifle. For instance, the blaster has two settings, stun and kill, but the stun setting appears to be very close range, and only lasts for about 5 minutes.
You realize simplicity in a ground weapon is a good thing, right? Anyway, IDK where you got your ides about the stun settings of blasters, but they are completely wrong (not that it really matters, considering how often they use them).

Spock22 wrote:the jedi stand much less of a chance than many star wars fans think. In one episode of voyager, (no idea which one, but basicly, an alien 'ghost' starts taking over members of the crew,) Tuvok (taken over by the alien), announces that he has his phaser set to Wide dispersal and kill. No one contradicts him. But he does fire it on stun, and the full bridge crew and others (15 - 20 people) are all stunned simultaniously. The Jedi would not be able to block a wide beam, and it would be rather hard for them to dogde
So, all they would have to do is absorb the blast with the force. Remember when Han tries to shoot Vader on Cloud City? Same Thing (though, again, this one thing really wouldn't make a difference).

Spock22 wrote:Also, in a next generation episode, Q sends some of the crew to a planet, where data scans some aliens approaching them and says something along the lines of "they have weapons similar to earths 18th centuary mustkets, range, 100 meters maximum."
To which riker replies "no match for our phasers!" Which suggests that phasers can shoot a few hundred meters at least.
Alright, I'll give you this, you have prover that phasers are probably more effective than smoothbore, blackpowder muskets. Fun fact, the effective range of an E-11 carbine is 300 meters, while a DC 15 blaser rifle can hit targets up to 10km away (at max power).

Spock22 wrote:5. Manourverability and speed. The star wars fans seem to say that light speed is faster than star trek, but, well, it is actually only the speed of light. Warp 4.8 is actually 111 times the speed of light, yes, one-hundred-and-eleven. and most federation ships can go upto warp 9. so i am pretty sure that star trek has the speed advantage.
You completely misrepresented hyperdrive speeds. Star Trek: Cross the galaxy in the better part of a century. Star Wars: Cross the (bigger) galaxy in the better part of a day.

Spock22 wrote: Also, Star trek ships are very agile, as you can see when the USS defiant (120 meters long, almost the size of a blockade runner, which is 150 meters) dodges in and out of enemy ships, something which i cant see the blockade runner doing....also, one of the funniest moments in star wars is when there are several
See above in the targeting section.

Spock22 wrote:Cloaking techinology as well, is available in both universes, the difference is, that in star trek, it can be held by a small mine no bigger than a meter sqaured each, but in star wars, an officer comments "a ship that size couldnt have a cloaking device!" referring to the Millenium Falcon.
Actually, star wars cloak can be shrunk down to fighter or shuttle size, it's just really expensive. I think this all speaks alot more to the quality of sensors in the GFFA than anything else, considering star wars cloak is a complete emission blackout, while trek cloak is more of a really good stealth system.

Edit: I see I was ninja'd. That's what I get for not submitting immediately. At any rate, my arguments stand.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:29 pm UTC

Meh i guess i didnt check all this out properly but then i dont run this site!
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWhi2.html
There! A link! I am just an unknowlegeable trekkie who never reads up on his sources and argues for the hell of it. But i like the guy who runs this site, although he may be slightly biased towards star trek, he isnt as bad as Mike Wong or Poe (his first name escapes me).
Oh and i dont think comic books are canon, so im not sure about those two wookieepedia links.
I would say that it would be a good fight, but it is star trek verasus wars, and there seems to be a lot more planets in the star trek world that are advanced and that have space tech, so putting them all together...
Oh and the borg do have weapons that are designed to drain sheilds...
one thing i would say is important is for a star wars fan to have seen a LOT of star trek episodes, it seems to be easier for trekkies to see all of the movies, and the clone wars, but for a star wars fan to have seen loads of episodes.
Also there seem to be a lot of weapons in trek that are weird or living, that would probably give trek an advantage, but im not a huge fan, i cant name some off by heart.
And still there seems to be no logical conclusion...
hehe :P

Link de-linked for lack of sufficient post count.

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:36 pm UTC

Spock22 wrote:Meh i guess i didnt check all this out properly but then i dont run this site!
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWhi2.html
There! A link! I am just an unknowlegeable trekkie who never reads up on his sources and argues for the hell of it. But i like the guy who runs this site, although he may be slightly biased towards star trek, he isnt as bad as Mike Wong or Poe (his first name escapes me).
He's actualy one of the most disturbed individuals I've ever seen on the internet (and that's really saying something). Do a little research on him before you start repeating his lies. Look up the times he went onto the official sites' message boards for both franchises, got into arguments with the published authors of official material company officials in charge of continuity, was told he was wrong and to F*** off (in so many words) then ran back to his website and claimed victory. Look up his delusinal paranoid ravings about how there is a great conspiracy out to get him, based out of a message board (Michael Wong's) which has a rule specificly against talking about him!

For the record, Michael Wong And Wayne Poe are not biased, they're just right. Dakrstar would have you believe that they basicly made up every number or fact either of them ever used, in an effort to inflate the power of the Wars side. That really doesn't sound like the type of people that would be mentioned in the acknowlagement section of an officilaly published refrence book (AOTC:ICS) that is used as refrence material by lucasfilm employees, does it?

Spock22 wrote:Oh and i dont think comic books are canon, so im not sure about those two wookieepedia links.
I don't think your thoughts override Lucasfilm's official canon policy.

Spock22 wrote:I would say that it would be a good fight, but it is star trek verasus wars, and there seems to be a lot more planets in the star trek world that are advanced and that have space tech, so putting them all together...
There arn't.

Spock22 wrote:Oh and the borg do have weapons that are designed to drain sheilds...
So does the Empire. They're called turbolasers. At anyrate, the Borg have never even conceved of shields this strong.

Spock22 wrote:one thing i would say is important is for a star wars fan to have seen a LOT of star trek episodes, it seems to be easier for trekkies to see all of the movies, and the clone wars, but for a star wars fan to have seen loads of episodes.
If it helps you accept what I'm saying (even though all my major argumentsstand on their own) I'm probably more of a trekkie than you are. I've seen every episode of TOS and TNG and 90% of VOY. I've only seen about two seasons worth of DS9, but by lucky chance, that included most of the significant episodes to these types of debate (TDiC, Nor Batle to the Strong, etc.), and about as much of Ent. The only one I admit I'm not too familiar with is TAS, simply because I've never had the opportunity to see it (though it looks like alot of fun).

That said, I have to ask, how many Star Wars novels have you ever read? How many times have you actually seen the movies (there's alot of detail to take in there)?

Spock22 wrote:Also there seem to be a lot of weapons in trek that are weird or living, that would probably give trek an advantage, but im not a huge fan, i cant name some off by heart.
See what I said in my last post abouut Bio tech. Also, "not a huge fan"? You joined a completely unrelated site with a Star Trek themed username specificly to talk about how much better it is than another franchise! Why would you do that If you're not a huge fan? Just to troll or something?

Spock22 wrote:And still there seems to be no logical conclusion...
There is, you just seem to be too stubborn to accept it.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Oni Asharri Rasyad
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:29 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Oni Asharri Rasyad » Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:43 am UTC

the Imperial Star Destroyer scanning/sensor system cannot found the Millenium Falcon, when the Millenium Falcon is on the Imperial Star Destroyer's back...

what a primitive technology :lol:

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:56 pm UTC

While warp drive is far slower than hyperdrive, ST ships can track and shoot targets while at warp. High speed strafing runs could prove quite effective.

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:08 pm UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:While warp drive is far slower than hyperdrive, ST ships can track and shoot targets while at warp. High speed strafing runs could prove quite effective.

Except high speed strafing runs don't provide much time above target, meaning there won't be very much damage done. Combine that with the fact that Star wars hull and shielding will take as much damage from a phaser as a windshield will take from a fly smashing into it, and suddenly high speed strafing runs don't look so effective. Also, the wiki states that warp fields can be disrupted by gravitons, allowing Immobilizer 418 cruisers, CC-7700 frigates, Hapan Battle dragons, and late-model Imperial-Class star destroyers (i.e.Mon Mothma, Anakin Solo) to use gravity-well projectors and pulse mass mines to rip them put of warp speed.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:25 pm UTC

Vader did ot absorb the blasts, the novelisation clearly states that the blasts were deflected on to the wall to the right of Vader.
Also, episode IV novel states that as the stormtroopers fired at Han and Luke who were in the detention corridor,blaster bolts bounced off shiny, polished surfaces. So equip Starfleet personal with mirrors...
Also, how fast does a DC-15 laser bolt travel? To actually do ten kilometers, even if it travelled at a ridiculous speed of 500 meters a second, it would still take around 20 seconds to reach the ten KM mark, which means its EFFECTIVE range would have to a lot less, maybe around 5KM. A Phaser's beam travels only slightly slower than the speed of light.
Also, the Species 8472 weapon would not just bounce of a planetery shield, because they dont actually exist. "But what about alderaan's shield?" It was never made canon, and in the ROTS novelisation (i love these books) it notes this about Coruscant: "The dayside surface of the capital planet was shrouded in smoke from a million fires touched off by meteorite impacts of ship fragments; far too many had fallen to be tracked and destroyed by the planet's surface-defense umbrella." If Coruscant doesnt have a planetary sheild, then what does? All it had was a series of defenses that lost horribly to the falling debris.
So the Species 8472 weapon would destroy planets, probably a lot of capital ships as well, nd maybe even the death star, seeing as it has much greater manourverability.
And seeing as Photon Torpedoes have a range of about 40,000KM, and they are only about 50cm wide...Starfleet could launch hundreds, at the very least, they would wreck the surface. The second DS's shield could be taken out with a Phaser blast to the sheild generator...then the same thing could be done! The Imps would have to say goodbye to the Death Star!

In answer to the previous reply, may i remind you that the range for the weapon systems on Starfleet ships exceed anything that exists in the Wars universe. So strafing runs wouldn be needed, as the Fed's ships could just sit back and pound away.
Also, the hull on an ISS isnt that strong. The asteroid completely destroyed the bridge of the ISS, not just heavily damaged the bridge, but SMASHED it. Went through the shields. So the hull cant be THAT good, the fact that no weapons were able to destroy the asteroid also looks like a black mark against the ISS. So, warsies, i am genuinely wondering why the asteroid hit the ship? Anyone know why? I am actually quite puzzled by this. On a different note, i do love that when Vader is talking to the officers via hologram shortly after the impact, one of the holograms turns and puts his arms up to defend himself, then 'fizzles' out :)
Oh and no citations again. Oh well, maybe one day i will find them...

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Berengal » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:40 am UTC

Spock22 wrote:Stuff..

Your posts always fill me with happiness and entertainment.

I'm not going to bother refuting everything you said, but about planetary shields, I'd recommend watching SW5:ESB.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:58 am UTC

Um...you mean that sheid that was clearly only protecting the rebel base? And was nowhere mentioned as a shield that covered the whole planet?
How did the empire land those AT-ATs if there was a shield covering the entire planet?
OOOH i almost forgot! Those rubbish sheilds on ISSs! In the comic book 'Shadows of the empire: Evolution", Guri is being chased by an ISS, she launches six proton torpedoes and the ISS is literally ripped in half. Photon torpedoes are bigger, and more powerful. Probably. So again, the ISS is beaten. Also, another comic book, no citation again, but two pairs of proton torpedoes are fired at an ISS. The first pair disrupts the shields long enough for the other pair to slip in between and blow a huge chunk out of the ISS. Not so tough now are they? :P
Mmm...stuff... :lol:

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Sockmonkey » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:46 pm UTC

hideki101 wrote:
Sockmonkey wrote:While warp drive is far slower than hyperdrive, ST ships can track and shoot targets while at warp. High speed strafing runs could prove quite effective.

Except high speed strafing runs don't provide much time above target, meaning there won't be very much damage done. Combine that with the fact that Star wars hull and shielding will take as much damage from a phaser as a windshield will take from a fly smashing into it, and suddenly high speed strafing runs don't look so effective. Also, the wiki states that warp fields can be disrupted by gravitons, allowing Immobilizer 418 cruisers, CC-7700 frigates, Hapan Battle dragons, and late-model Imperial-Class star destroyers (i.e.Mon Mothma, Anakin Solo) to use gravity-well projectors and pulse mass mines to rip them put of warp speed.


It's been shown that SW tech can't track a ship moving at hyperlight speeds. Now, if this means that they can't track ships at warp either, there is nothing SW ships can do to prevent a surprise first strike while their shields are down.
Use the first shots to disable the shilds generators and hyperdrive, and they would be sitting ducks.
Rmember, ST ships can pop in and out of warp almost instantly without needing any time for calculations.
Pop out, shoot, pop in.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

User avatar
hideki101
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm UTC
Location: everywhere and nowhere

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hideki101 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:30 am UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:
hideki101 wrote:
Sockmonkey wrote:While warp drive is far slower than hyperdrive, ST ships can track and shoot targets while at warp. High speed strafing runs could prove quite effective.

Except high speed strafing runs don't provide much time above target, meaning there won't be very much damage done. Combine that with the fact that Star wars hull and shielding will take as much damage from a phaser as a windshield will take from a fly smashing into it, and suddenly high speed strafing runs don't look so effective. Also, the wiki states that warp fields can be disrupted by gravitons, allowing Immobilizer 418 cruisers, CC-7700 frigates, Hapan Battle dragons, and late-model Imperial-Class star destroyers (i.e.Mon Mothma, Anakin Solo) to use gravity-well projectors and pulse mass mines to rip them put of warp speed.


It's been shown that SW tech can't track a ship moving at hyperlight speeds. Now, if this means that they can't track ships at warp either, there is nothing SW ships can do to prevent a surprise first strike while their shields are down.
Use the first shots to disable the shields generators and hyperdrive, and they would be sitting ducks.
Rmember, ST ships can pop in and out of warp almost instantly without needing any time for calculations.
Pop out, shoot, pop in.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Actually, I was looking at warp, and I think that Star wars ships can track Star Trek ships in warp. Why? Because Star Wars hyperspace and Star Trek Warp speed are fundamentally different in the mode of transportation.

To go into hyperspace, a Star Wars ship creates a bubble of realspace in Hyperspace, a dimension that allows FTL travel. It basically removes the ship from this universe, then returns it to realspace at a different location.

Star Trek warp speed relies on a subspace bubble that distorts space in front and behind the ship, allowing the ship to move through realspace at FTL speeds.

It is this distinction that allows Star Trek ships to track and shoot at other ships: they are still in realspace, and thus can attack and be attacked like any conventional ship. Sure they are moving really fast, but in the incoming leg of the strafing run, they would have very little manuverability due to their speed (any large maneuvering would tear the ship apart due to inertial stress), and any gunner worth their post will know how to lead a target, even if the target is moving at twice the speed of light.
Albert Einistein wrote:"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby EvanED » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:14 am UTC

Ah, but there's no evidence that the SW universe (well, at least from the movies that I can remember) has any FTL detection methods.

Presumably they can communicate FTL so it's not unreasonable to think they would, but it's not a certainty either.

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:59 am UTC

True, but in "TNG:The Wounded", we see the Pheonix go through a 30-45 degree turn, which suggests that they have at least fairly good manouverability.
Also, it would be kinda pointless trying to target something that at the upper limit, could be 195,000 Km out of range. Now, whether bening at warp may dampen this figure slightly, the range would probably still be a hellova lot more.
Still, a good shot could damage a Galaxy class quite a bit, considering that the Galaxy would be moving towards the laser bolt at hundreds of times the speed of light. Just as long as it got out of the way after it attacked...

User avatar
GonzoMcFonzo
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
Location: The D of C

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GonzoMcFonzo » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:06 pm UTC

Spock22, I see you subscribe to the "ignore what i disagree with" strategy of online discussion. It's very trendy.

Spock22 wrote:Vader did ot absorb the blasts, the novelisation clearly states that the blasts were deflected on to the wall to the right of Vader.
Ande the movie clearly shows that he absorbed them. Not that it really matters, since we've seen jedi do both bare-handed all the time.

Spock22 wrote:Also, episode IV novel states that as the stormtroopers fired at Han and Luke who were in the detention corridor,blaster bolts bounced off shiny, polished surfaces. So equip Starfleet personal with mirrors...
And the mirrors are promptly shattered by the kenetic impact of the blaster bolts. Simply bouncing off of some siny surface does not imply that any shiny surface will do it. Can you give a quote of this happening? I don't have my copy of ANH with me here at achool, and don't remeber this part.

Spock22 wrote:Also, how fast does a DC-15 laser bolt travel? To actually do ten kilometers, even if it travelled at a ridiculous speed of 500 meters a second, it would still take around 20 seconds to reach the ten KM mark, which means its EFFECTIVE range would have to a lot less, maybe around 5KM. A Phaser's beam travels only slightly slower than the speed of light.
First of all, you obviously have no idea what real guns can do. The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge (the standard ammo one would use in an M-16) has a muzzle velocity of 940m/s, while some sniper rifle rounds move at closer to 1000m/s. Next, we can clearly see a phaser beam travelling, at much less than c.

Spock22 wrote:Also, the Species 8472 weapon would not just bounce of a planetery shield, because they dont actually exist.
once again, you have no Idea what you're talking about. Planetary shields are all over the official material, and you can actually see Alderaan's in slow motion. Please stop making up your own canon. The Battle of Coruscant took place in the upper atmosphere, inside the planetary shield.

Spock22 wrote:Starfleet could launch hundreds [of photon torps], at the very least, they would wreck the surface. The second DS's shield could be taken out with a Phaser blast to the sheild generator...then the same thing could be done! The Imps would have to say goodbye to the Death Star!
Except for the part where the shield generator is, in fact, protected by it's own shield. Seriously, did you even watch the movies?

Spock22 wrote:In answer to the previous reply, may i remind you that the range for the weapon systems on Starfleet ships exceed anything that exists in the Wars universe
"Blatant lies. The Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections specifically cites effective ranges for turbolasers of 10 light minutes. Meanwhile, I defy you to show me an example of a single battle in Star Trek fought at more than a few dozens of Km."
hat's me, responding to the same claim not two posts ago. How did you respond to my citation of an official source and request for the same? By completely ignoring it and reposting your lie!

Spock22 wrote:Also, the hull on an ISS isnt that strong.
I agree. the hull on the Inernational Space Station is, in fact, paper thin in places, and rather weak.

That said, during the hoth asteroid field chase, Darth Vader demanded a holonet confrence with all of his commanders. One of the quirks of holonet systems is that they cannot transmit from behind deflectors (not all communications mind you, only fancy realtime 3D stuff). considering the density of the asteroid field, it is not surprising that one got through one ships point defence uimbrella, and impacted on an unshielded hull. A different commander might have settled for voice only in such a situation, but, as Lord Vader said, asteroids did not concern him.

I would like to point out that you have ignored tha vast majority of the points I've made, as well as almost all of the responces I made to your points, in favor of repeating the same lies you came in here with.

Re: Warp Strafing
While there seem to be alot of cool things a warp capable ship should be able to do, my enthusiasm for them is dampened somewhat by the fact that we never see them do this, ever. The closest we've ever seen them come to the kind of tactics we talked about here in this thread is the Picard Manuver, which is litterally a just a warp speed bum rush, ahich (i'd like to point out) still did not include firing untill the ship had dropped back out of warp. Also, Data devised a counter for it in about 5 min.
If that's the best anyone in starfleet, after centurys of combat with warp capable ships can come up with, i see no reason why when facing the empire they would suddenly pull out all of these fancy things. Also, SW ships do have FTL sensors, you just don't see them used much because hyperdrive speeds are such that they would need to have rediculous range to be effective for combat. E.G. even if you can see two light hours out at FTL speeds, it won't help when your enemy can cover that distance in seconds or less.
JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

Spock22
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:58 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Spock22 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:15 pm UTC

"TNG:The Wounded", the USS Pheonix fires at a Cardassian Supply ship at a range of 90,000 KM.
Actually, i seem to recall someone (a die hard star wars fan) telling me that the cross section books were not canon... but never mind.
Oh and the 'mirrors' thing was a joke, obviously i didnt make it clear, sorry.
Still know that Trek ships are more manouverable.
Oh and the reason i just reposted those 'lies' was because i didnt read your posts, or anyone elses, word for word. Just skipread 'em.
And i wouldnt have said lies, i would call them 'statements that i make that i beieve to be true, but obviously are not due to my inferiour knowledge'. And as it has been proved, i do, but i didnt lie on purpose...just out of sheer ignorance!
Oh and COME ON! you cant compare the millenium falcon to a ship that is 600 meters long! (probably wasnt you Gonzo, but hell its annoying!)
Hmmm... When i next have time i think i will post an outline of the battle itself...not just 'lies' :P
OH an can you give me a link to some of this darkstar stuff?

User avatar
LittleKey
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:24 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby LittleKey » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:39 pm UTC

i'm going to start wars, for one simple fact. I haven't ever seen the Enterprise win a battle against anyone. I haven't seen much star trek, but from what i've seen, they always get their shields down, get hurt a little bit, then run away.

Matterwave1
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:01 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Matterwave1 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:04 pm UTC

There are near-omnipotent species in Star Trek other than the Q. I remember an individual member of a species encountered by Picard who killed a whole species, all 10 billion of them, by being too angry at them...I forgot his name tho =/

User avatar
telcontar42
Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:33 pm UTC
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby telcontar42 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:15 pm UTC

All your technological arguments for the superiority of Star Trek are nothing compared to the overwhelming coolness that is Han Solo. Star Wars wins. It's really not debatable.

Zalzidrax
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:41 am UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Zalzidrax » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:59 pm UTC

If you're going for anti-hero, Garak is way more badass than Solo.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby Azrael001 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:57 pm UTC

I don't know who that is, but I am sure that Solo is cooler.
23111

User avatar
telcontar42
Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:33 pm UTC
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby telcontar42 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not possible to be cooler than Han Solo. This Garak guy might be cool but he's not Han Solo cool.

User avatar
GiantSnowman
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:01 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby GiantSnowman » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

I'd like to add some meta-story thinking about the Federation vs the Empire: In both universes, good always triumphs over evil in the end. This is a little more true for Star Wars since it is a fantasy setting which must always have some good vs evil conflict in it, while Star Trek spends some of it's time as a science fiction, dealing with technical difficulties (and tribbles) or thinking about the repurcussions of new technology and strange cultures (and tribbles).

So in a Star Wars story about the Empire invading the Federation, the Federation would suffer incredible losses until everything seems desperate. Then a young hero on an impossible mission would by chance discover a vital vulnerability in the enemies war machine. He would then need to overcome great obstacles (and tribbles) to get a plan made to exploit this flaw. (heroes never seem to do much planning on their own, do they?) This plan will involve an epic battle, risking everything for the hero to get one chance to defeat evil.

In a Star Trek story someone in the Federation wil hatch a very immoral diabolical scheme to defeat the Empire. (setting assimilated tribbles on them) The captain will be charged with executing this plan, putting him in a moral dilemma. Just before or just after he made a decision a third option will reveal itsself. Be it technical ("Captain, if we destabilize the quantum foam intertia of the deflector dish, the wormhole will suck all matter which has once traveled trough it back in.") or social (the second-in-command of the attack fleet makes the Empire see the error of its ways), it will completely save the day.

Either way, the Federation is so goody goody they're destined to win!

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek vs. Star Wars

Postby hotaru » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:06 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:I don't know who that is, but I am sure that Solo is cooler.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Elim_Garak

Occupation:
Tailor
Spy
Assassin
Gardener


that's so much cooler than just being a smuggler.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests