X-Wing all the way!

With you on this one.

The X-wing has always been my favourite ship in Star Wars. Sure, it's a little bit long in the tooth, but I just love the look of it.

Which would you want? I would personally go with either a Sith Meditation Sphere or a ship similar to the Jade Shadow, but with stealth tech like the Stealth X. I wish I could say a Star Destroyer, but that requires a large crew.

Venator Class Star Destroyer or an Imperial Dreadnaught...... They require only 4 people to navigate, and you could always use a computer program for the shooting and stuff....

Trade fediation driod control ship.

Then all i need to do is find myself a nice resours rich astaroid and i have a fleet of driod ships in non time.

Ok driods arent as smart as real people but they dont eat dont sleep dont need to be payed.

All in all a win-win for me.

A-Wing

Small, quick, nimble and has one seat. The only free rides I give out involve my 'stash.

Besides, "Single-handedly took down a super star destroyer" on my headstone would make the rest of the graveyard look like a bunch of B!--hes.

Trade fediation driod control ship.

Then all i need to do is find myself a nice resours rich astaroid and i have a fleet of driod ships in non time.

Ok driods arent as smart as real people but they dont eat dont sleep dont need to be payed.

All in all a win-win for me.

I am right with ya, droids and a battleship.

The U.S.S. Enterprise is not star wars and is an inferior ship due to the sheer amount of weaponry Star Wars ships have. The Stealth X can make that cruiser a distant memory.

lol

No.

lol

 

No.

Take note of the Slave-1 vs Enterprise....

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

Take note of the Slave-1 vs Enterprise....

 

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

Yup, like a bug. You won't get through to a Trekkie though, no matter what you say.

As for ship, gotta say I love the look of the naboo skiff padme used to travel to mustafar, but there's too many other ships I like, it's so hard to chose.

Really? No one wants the TIE Defender. Slightly faster than an A-Wing in the atmosphere. WAY faster in space. A pair of dual laser cannons, dual ion cannons, and photon torpedo launcher. And more nimble than any starfighter of it's time.

Come on.

Sovereign-class dreadnought

Eclipse-class dreadnought

Or

Pellaeon-class Star Destroyer

Take note of the Slave-1 vs Enterprise....

 

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

Literally everybody has seen this, and it's almost always disregarded in any serious discussion. It uses the completely asinine SW2ICS numbers for Star Wars which, If you've actually read them, (or the page your linked) all the numbers are complete asspulls made for the sole purpose of making the numbers look big. If even half of them could be taken seriously most of the ships in the SW universe would be planet poppers, which they clearly aren't.

Also, in one of the numbers it does compare a planet buster (The Deathstar) to an orbital bombardment fleet. It's worth noting that planet busters do exist in the ST universe.

Not to mention a lot of the information on the page is factually incorrect, such as "The majority of ST fleet actions take place at less than 5km" where, in fact, common engagements take place at several hundred KMs away in ST, with maximum range for an average ship in ST having them fire cross system. If anything, from what we've seen on the screen, SW conflicts are actually much, much closer as it's common to fight just off the bow of the ship.

What is important is that it's made very clear in ST canon, on screen, that any technology pre-phaser/disruptor/etc will be negated by shields. There's a scene in TNG where they're fired on by high yield lasers and actually laugh. Many SW ships also keep their shield generators external where they are easily fired upon by any shot that makes it through their shields where as the Enterprise's generator is kept deep within the ship. Phasers fire at the speed of light; tactical maneuvering, dodging, and aiming are done with calculations and prediction where as it's clearly reactionary in the SW universe, which would be ineffective.

I could go on and on, but I wont. I originally made the post as a joke, I think there's actually another older SW vs ST thread on here that covers much of this already.

Really? No one wants the TIE Defender. Slightly faster than an A-Wing in the atmosphere. WAY faster in space. A pair of dual laser cannons, dual ion cannons, and photon torpedo launcher. And more nimble than any starfighter of it's time.

 

Come on.

As much as I LOVE the TIE Defender, a starship is usually a better choice, you aren't cramped in a small area and you can have access to toilets and showers :-P

As much as I LOVE the TIE Defender, a starship is usually a better choice, you aren't cramped in a small area and you can have access to toilets and showers :-P

You can have your Winnebago, Lonestar, I'll keep my McLaren.

Literally everybody has seen this, and it's almost always disregarded in any serious discussion. It uses the completely asinine SW2ICS numbers for Star Wars which, If you've actually read them, (or the page your linked) all the numbers are complete asspulls made for the sole purpose of making the numbers look big. If even half of them could be taken seriously most of the ships in the SW universe would be planet poppers, which they clearly aren't.

 

Also, in one of the numbers it does compare a planet buster (The Deathstar) to an orbital bombardment fleet. It's worth noting that planet busters do exist in the ST universe.

 

Not to mention a lot of the information on the page is factually incorrect, such as "The majority of ST fleet actions take place at less than 5km" where, in fact, common engagements take place at several hundred KMs away in ST, with maximum range for an average ship in ST having them fire cross system. If anything, from what we've seen on the screen, SW conflicts are actually much, much closer as it's common to fight just off the bow of the ship.

 

What is important is that it's made very clear in ST canon, on screen, that any technology pre-phaser/disruptor/etc will be negated by shields. There's a scene in Enterprise where they're fired on by high yield lasers and actually laugh. Many SW ships also keep their shield generators external where they are easily fired upon by any shot that makes it through their shields where as the Enterprise's generator is kept deep within the ship. Phasers fire at the speed of light; tactical maneuvering, dodging, and aiming are done with calculations and prediction where as it's clearly reactionary in the SW universe, which would be ineffective.

 

I could go on and on, but I wont. I originally made the post as a joke, I think there's actually another older SW vs ST thread on here that covers much of this already.

Well your little post is as much bull as the last guys. While you are correct that most ST engagements happen around 20-30k km, the rest is conjecture at best. Starting with terminology. If you want to talk terminology, you might use the classically incorrect arguement that Star Destroyers are destroyers, and the Galaxy is a captial ship. Just as poinless an arguement is the laser vs. phaser/disruptor arguement. It is pointless unless we can talk actual real life damage output. The difference between the nuclear bomb used on Japan (.02 mt) vs the current day (20 mt) is vastly different (1000 times), and yet they are still both nuclear bombs.

As for the shields, both ST and SW shield generators are kept deep within the ship, the EMITTERS on the other hand have to be on the outside of both. The shield emitters on the ST ships come from the same place as the navigational ones - the main deflector dish. Which is placed in the front of the ship in plain view, due to the necessity of navigation. Somehow the SW universe has overcome this and the shield emitters on Star Destroyers are mounted on the command pod at the rear of the ship.

Do I need to even touch the "Phasers fire at the speed of light"? O_O

The rest is just a bunch of hogwash. The agility of a 1600 m Star Destroyer is not that of a 650 m Galaxy. There is no conversion between the accleration measurement of either universe, so it is again, conjecture. How you can say "reactionary" is beyond me.

The truth of the matter is that it will never be a hands down who is better, it will always be skewed based by the perceptions of the fan. The only difference that is clearly measured is warp vs hyperspace and since both the Star Wars galaxy and ours is roughly the same size at 120k ly. It takes a week to get from the Core Worlds to the Outer Rim. It took (or would have) Voyager 7 years to get back to the Alpha quadrant. Trans-warp has changed this, but still is slower than conventional SW hyperdrives. Beyond that you can say relative technology would mean SW wins in the end, since one could argue that turbo-lasers and lasers must be on an order of magnitude similar. It is again, just conjecture.

So unless Star Wars decides to publish actual numbers based on common terminology, it will remain pointless. I somehow think that Lucas likes to keep it that way. It's more fun to point at the fans and laugh at the nerd rage that these arguements cause.

Well your little post is as much bull as the last guys. While you are correct that most ST engagements happen around 20-30k km, the rest is conjecture at best. Starting with terminology. If you want to talk terminology, you might use the classically incorrect arguement that Star Destroyers are destroyers, and the Galaxy is a captial ship. Just as poinless an arguement is the laser vs. phaser/disruptor arguement. It is pointless unless we can talk actual real life damage output. The difference between the nuclear bomb used on Japan (.02 mt) vs the current day (20 mt) is vastly different (1000 times), and yet they are still both nuclear bombs.

Except I don't think it's pointless. It's said directly, and on screen, that lasers can't make it through modern shielding. They've been made practically obsolete; the only cultures that use them are usually early warpspeed. I suppose you could argue that the SW lasers are so powerful that it somehow negates that, but then that's just as much conjecture as anything else.

As for the shields, both ST and SW shield generators are kept deep within the ship, the EMITTERS on the other hand have to be on the outside of both. The shield emitters on the ST ships come from the same place as the navigational ones - the main deflector dish. Which is placed in the front of the ship in plain view, due to the necessity of navigation. Somehow the SW universe has overcome this and the shield emitters on Star Destroyers are mounted on the command pod at the rear of the ship.

My bad on the emitters part, I still think it's a pretty serious flaw. They always seem very vulnerable in the show and tv series, and then even here on SWTOR you can blast away at them with smaller ships and take them out with relative ease.

Do I need to even touch the "Phasers fire at the speed of light"? O_O

Yes, because it's true. " A protonic charge forms and is released in pulses to the emitter made out of the same superconductive crystal. A beam of elecromagnetic energy is released from it at the speed of light" from the 1991 Starship Tech manuals. I believe it's also mentioned on screen in TNG.

The rest is just a bunch of hogwash. The agility of a 1600 m Star Destroyer is not that of a 650 m Galaxy. There is no conversion between the accleration measurement of either universe, so it is again, conjecture. How you can say "reactionary" is beyond me.

Reaction as in done on the fly, more like a dog fight than a naval battle. Where as in ST a lot of it is predictive and based on calculations and expectations.

The truth of the matter is that it will never be a hands down who is better, it will always be skewed based by the perceptions of the fan. The only difference that is clearly measured is warp vs hyperspace and since both the Star Wars galaxy and ours is roughly the same size at 120k ly. It takes a week to get from the Core Worlds to the Outer Rim. It took (or would have) Voyager 7 years to get back to the Alpha quadrant. Trans-warp has changed this, but still is slower than conventional SW hyperdrives. Beyond that you can say relative technology would mean SW wins in the end, since one could argue that turbo-lasers and lasers must be on an order of magnitude similar. It is again, just conjecture.

 

So unless Star Wars decides to publish actual numbers based on common terminology, it will remain pointless. I somehow think that Lucas likes to keep it that way. It's more fun to point at the fans and laugh at the nerd rage that these arguements cause.

I don't dispute that SW ships are faster, though they don't seem as capable of on-the-fly jumping (if I recall hyperdrive takes a few moments to kick in, and the computer needs time to calculate a route. I believe Han comments on it in the original trilogy) so SW would be at a definite disadvantage to things like, say, the Picard Maneuver; but I'm not arguing specific tactics here.

I do want to point out all I did to start this argument was make the joke that I'd choose the U.S.S Enterprise, which I made because I thought it was a funny 'mistake', calling from something from the wrong universe. Perhaps I should of chosen the Normandy or the Serenity.

Except I don't think it's pointless. It's said directly, and on screen, that lasers can't make it through modern shielding. They've been made practically obsolete; the only cultures that use them are usually early warpspeed. I suppose you could argue that the SW lasers are so powerful that it somehow negates that, but then that's just as much conjecture as anything else.

It is pointless. Modern shielding is relative to the power exerted, that is all that matters, what ever you want to call the weapon. If you want to argue the relative tech, as I pointed out with warp/trans-warp vs hyperspace, then the order of magnitude would have to come into play. Assuming that the lasers of ST and SW are the same, the laser fired at the Enterprise D had the power output I will label as X, the lasers of SW galaxy are X to the power of 364. A significant upgrade. The terminology is irrelevant to the power of the weapon. If the lasers of SW galaxy were called twigs, you would argue that a twig would never pierce the hull of the Enterprise.

My bad on the emitters part, I still think it's a pretty serious flaw. They always seem very vulnerable in the show and tv series, and then even here on SWTOR you can blast away at them with smaller ships and take them out with relative ease.

How many times has the Enterprise been disabled with a single shot? Several. A single starfighter, within the shield envelope of the Enterprise targeting the main deflector would disable it just as easily.

Yes, because it's true. " A protonic charge forms and is released in pulses to the emitter made out of the same superconductive crystal. A beam of elecromagnetic energy is released from it at the speed of light" from the 1991 Starship Tech manuals. I believe it's also mentioned on screen in TNG.

So lasers don't travel at the speed of light? Come on. This arguement flies in the face of your further arguement down the line of tactics and manuvering. If phaser/disruptor tech is that fast, battles would be over in less than a second and there would be no calculations and tactics. It would just be who shot first.

(Han! ------------)

Reaction as in done on the fly, more like a dog fight than a naval battle. Where as in ST a lot of it is predictive and based on calculations and expectations.

Site your source. You are making assumptions. Your arguement is based on starfighters vs a capital ship. To put that in today's analogy, it's the difference between an F-22 and an aircraft carrier. These arguements are based around behind the scenes problems. The expense of putting several starships of any size is expensive. It was not financially feasable to put hundreds of starships fighters or capital in TOS or even TNG. Come up with hard numbers vs observation and there can be real discussion, otherwise it's all bull.

I don't dispute that SW ships are faster, though they don't seem as capable of on-the-fly jumping (if I recall hyperdrive takes a few moments to kick in, and the computer needs time to calculate a route. I believe Han comments on it in the original trilogy) so SW would be at a definite disadvantage to things like, say, the Picard Maneuver; but I'm not arguing specific tactics here.

The reason for the length of time to calculate is that the speed in which they move is so fast that they have to take into account the movements of ALL the celestial bodies within their projected flight path. ST ships are so slow that it can be done manually. You can make an immediate jump to hyperspace, but it is risky due to the speed at which you travel. So Han's line "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy!" would apply. The sheer power to push a vehicle to such speed is not within our current comprehension. So to put that power in the compact size of a single pilot vehicle, such as an X-Wing, is beyond what the ST universe can even deal with.

I do want to point out all I did to start this argument was make the joke that I'd choose the U.S.S Enterprise, which I made because I thought it was a funny 'mistake', calling from something from the wrong universe. Perhaps I should of chosen the Normandy or the Serenity.

But you did offer more arguement to the point, so I showed you the flaw in such effort.

[EDIT: You know, the more you make me research this, the more I'm siding with the Empire crushing the Federation]