I'm not sure if this is in jest or you're actually serious. If it's in jest, then, I really see no humor in it. If you're serious, then let me explain why that won't work:
1. Transporters do not work through shields. Which ISDs have.
2. Transporters do not work through particularly dense materials. Which ISDs have in abundance in their armor.
3. Transporters do not work in the presence of unusual/exotic radiations. Which is likely to come off of the hypermatter reactor that drives an ISD.
In short, transporters are to tempermental and random to reliably use to turn the course of conflict. There's also the slight problem that there is indeed a secondary bridge within the main hull of an ISD. So even if you could transport an antimatter bomb or whatever onto the bridge of an ISD, it wouldn't matter, because a secondary bridge would shortly thereafter take control, and direct firepower onto the Federation ship, turning it into a rapidly expanding cloud of plasma.
Ultimately both sides lose.
In Star Trek and the Star Wars universe, space is apparently made up of an atmosphere. This is clear based on the fact that in both, there is sound in space. Thus, any attempt at FTL travel, (in the methods used in both) would result in the complete destruction of the ship by being bombarded by the atmosphere at absurd speeds. (Envision hitting pavement at the speed of sound.)
So for the sake of argument lets say the empire notices the Alpha Quadrant and seeks the magical ability to create matter, (an absurdity that THEY don't have it after thousands of years of technological development yet humans in Star Trek can do this with only several hundred years of space travel and technological development.) So Darth Vader decides to send off the lone ISD to take out the puny federation. They prepare for hyperspace and hit the thrusters! Instantly obliterating the ISD against the curious atmosphere in space. After this, Picard decides to take the brand new Enterprise E out for a spin and orders Warp 9, and instantly it explodes against the curious atmosphere in space.
Both explosions are brilliant with massive flames and a cool VISIBLE shock-wave. (Because there is FIRE in space?)
So as you can see neither side would ever be able to reach the other despite the show/movies saying otherwise.
Or perhaps you're an idiot? Obviously, there isn't sound in space. The most likely explanation is that there is a sound simulation of the combat environment, to aid situational awareness. Further, there's no indication that the ships are traveling superluminally in real space. Trek uses a "warp shell" to to move at superluminal velocity, and presumably the ship isn't outrunning light within the warp shell, so it's logical to assume that the warp shell constitutes some sort of shielding system and FTL travel mechanism.
In the case of SW, ships use hyperdrive. There are 2 ways it's explained: either the ship is "shunted" into hyperspace, thus making your example null and void, as hyperspace is described as a dimension of pure energy. The other manner is that the hyperdrive transitions the ship from "tardyonic" (fancy science word meaning 'slower-than-light') matter to "tachyonic" (fancy science word meaning faster-than-light) matter. Since tachyons, a theoretical particle that isn't even known to exist, are considered to never move slower-than-light (or even at lightspeed), they likely do not interact with tarydonic matter. Which means no boom.
In the case of explosions with flames and a visible shockwave, have you considered the following? Fire can exist in space, because whatever is fueling the fire is likely coming from inside the ship. It's like a candle in the dark, only the air and fuel come from inside the ship. It's perfectly plausible that such would happen.
In the case of shockwaves, perhaps the shockwave is visible/propogating due to the massive amounts of debris (a fair portion of which will be very fine)?
Or maybe it's all those exotic-science-fictional elements that compose these ships that causes them to detonate with visible shockwaves.
Of course, there's also the possibility that your only posting this to troll people, because you think the entire concept and discussions posited by this thread are stupid. In which case you're an idiot. Not because the concepts and discussions in this thread have great meaning, but because these discussions and concepts are enjoyable ways to spend one's time.
Actually its called "Hollywood Magic", as in that's something you just have to include in suspension of disbelief (space battles without sound wound be quite boring after all). There is no real way to justify it that isn't either full of holes, complete wrong or just silly.
I dunno, Goa. Humans are very dependent on auditory sensors (i.e. ears) in a combat situation. My own dad, a veteran, has said that they were issued with earplugs but they didn't really use them because they needed to be able to hear the sound of the enemy's gunfire.
I justify some sound in my verse through psionics. Psionic-based weapons produce a "sound" that those with sensitivity to psionics can "hear". But it's a lot different than what you'd expect. UD Beam weapons produce a very deep, droning hum + a high-pitch pulse as they produce elemental radiation and vaporize planets. Everything else wouldn't produce sound this way, of course. Even races without sensitivity to psionics could hear the sound from very potent psionic weapons, as long as they have functioning brains. Incidentally, this same energy can kill you just as easily.
My world is not a nice place to do space battle in.
transporters have been able to work through solid rock
an isd's bridge has a windshield
1) it would still kill the isd's bridge crew and force less skilled officers to take command
2) in rotj, the ssd instantly lost control when the bridge was destroyed. that period of vulnerability could easily be exploited
They can transport through shields, but only if they have the shield modulation.
>sigh< The endless futility of pitting two fictional universes with a different set of rules against one another. It just doesn't work, the classic argument from the trekkies is that Federation shields have been shown to repel lasers with ease, however in Star Wars, lasers are shown to be incredibly powerful weapons. This could be technological disparity or it is more definitely just the two universes being incompatible with one another. Simply put, a weapon or technology that is powerful in one universe is weak in another and no one is ever going to win this debate.
For a videogame analogy, consider the TEC vs the Covenant of Halo. The Humans in Halo use similar weapons to the TEC, and are incapable of penetrating Covenant shields, however the TEC weaponry can disable the shields of the Advent and even the Vasari, who are at least as advanced and possible more advanced than the Covenant respectively, so who wins?
Rock != dense armor plating. And while an ISD might have a windshield, you still have to deal with shields that can take the full broadside of another ISD. Which is high teraton-level. Which, BTW, far outstrips what Trek has.
2) in rotj, the ssd instantly lost control when the bridge was destroyed. that period of vulnerability could easily be avoided
1. Secondary Bridge Crew != less skilled officers
2. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you acknowledging the fact that blowing up the bridge would be futile anyway?
And SW ships do not rely on silly shield modulation. Hence, transporters do not work on SW ships that are shielded.
I'm going to set aside the fact that you're analogy is utterly flawed. For now.
1. "Lasers" in Star Wars are most definitely not lasers. Because if they were lasers they would propagate at lightspeed, and be invisible in vacuum. Since neither trait is observed on the "lasers" of SW, they are obviously not lasers. It's the same thing with "cannon". A cannon was originally a smoothbore gun that hurled a large spherical shot at the enemy. It's now a generic term for a large gunnery system.
2. Or it could be that instead of "weapon X in Universe A is weak, but strong in Universe B", it's really "weapon X in Universe A is nothing like weapon Y in Universe B". Further, durr, the universes are "incompatible". They're different settings! That doesn't stop people from deciding to have them duke it out by act of plot/authorial fiat, but hey, that's a fan decision. It's not like Lucas and Paramount are teaming up saying, "we're gonna make the first SW vs ST movie evah!"
3. You're analogy is utterly flawed. We have technical data that is given in real-world units to compare several verses to each other (Halo is one of them, BTW). We have nothing on any faction from Sins. Nothing. There's no way to compare them. Further, even if a Trek shield could block a laser of infinite power (which it can't), then it would still die, because once a laser reaches 700 megatons of output, then the beam has momentum equal to one of this silly Jem'Hadar fighters. Which means dead Trek ship.
Further, SW, ST, Halo, and probably half a dozen other franchises have all released supplementary material detailing weapons yield, ship acceleration, dimensions, occasionally tonnage (though tonnage is rather nonsensical for UNSC ships, as if they had the tonnage claimed they'd have a density that is significantly less than air), and usually endurance. Oh, yeah, and sometimes weapons range.
Those are all easily quantifiable figures. I'll use an example: SW ships have megaton-yield point defenses. Don't believe me? Here's the proof: in SW Episode III Incredible Cross Sections, the Invisible Hand is specified as carrying multiple PD ion cannons capable of unleashing heat equal to a 4.8 megaton bomb. And that's per cannon. While on the Trek side, we have the "64.3 megaton photon torpedo". And the "50 isoton" quantum torpedo. Of course, isotons are a rather nonsensical unit; in the real world, that would mean "50 tons". However, photorps are given as "25 isotons", so we can infer that a quantum torpedo can, at maximum, unleash 128.6 megatons of destructive energy.
So it might kill a couple of fighters. And then it will get zapped by the Star Destroyer that launched said fighters.
With the case of the Imperium, I actually think it's one of the 'nicer' guys on the block, because the Imperium is not that way by choice. They have to be borderline evil and uber-ruthless and callous, because every other guy on the block is gunning for them.
As an aside, I haven't read the Eisenhorn trilogy, and I'm certain it's a good read, but I have a rather low opinion of the character of Eisenhorn. Mostly because there are other ways than trying to turn Chaos against itself (which is a surefire way to get your soul ripped apart). That said, I don't think Tau children have nightmares about humans, because I doubt the Tau know the full extent of the Imperium. Which really makes sense, considering their tiny empire and belief that they will be a big player. The Tau really are small stuff in 40K, seeing as how most races either outnumber, or outgun (or both), them. But then again, I just don't really like the Tau that much.
As for a SWvsST mod, I don't think Imperial capitals should be too much more expensive. However, there could be an alternate idea in instead having Victory-I and Victory-II class SDs buildable as cruisers instead of capitals. That would, IMO, reflect the immense industrial might of the Empire. They'd have to cost ~50% more than a normal heavy cruiser (each), but they'd be about twice as strong.
Or perhaps the "idiot" is the person who calls people an idiot because they disagree with you. How mature. I'm going to guess, (and hope) that you are young and that explains your lack of maturity. Or perhaps its just the anonymous web that gives you this self pretentiousness. Perhaps shortcomings in the real world? Hmmm. One has to wonder.
My point is that the futility of debating the "my science fiction universe is better than your science fiction universe" is well, futile. If you argue based on logic, and based on what we know of the laws of physics you can't ignore the holes in the science that Hollywood allows to exist. Because the advantages to either universe are based on our own understanding, and our own universe. Simply put. Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars operate under our own laws of physics, nor each others which means there is zero credibility to either side as we don't know their laws of physics. How do we know the strength of a shield for example, if we don't know how physics operate in their said universe? It's mere guesswork. (Albeit, an amusing anecdotal argument, despite no way to win.)
Regardless, I would very much enjoy playing a mod that allows me to pit the Federation vs. the Empire. Would be great fun if balanced to be playable as either side.
Maybe I called you an idiot because you were, oh I don't know, being an idiot? My point is that we have no need to know how or why something in a scifi 'verse works, because within the context of the verse, it works. Further, a fundamental assumption when talking about any versus is that both sides' gear works fine, and as advertised.
Just because a scifi universe doesn't work under the known laws of physics, doesn't mean we can't objectively analyze them to determine who would win. We know the operating characteristics of something, so we assume that it does indeed work. Even think about saying "Universe A's stuff works fine, but Universe B's stuff is all shot to hell", and you'll be lampooned as an idiot. Say that neither side's stuff works at all, will have you lampooned as an idiot, moron, and retard. Further, people will hope that you don't procreate, so that you don't pollute the gene pool with your stupidity.
I'm going to highlight this in particular. Just because I call you an idiot doesn't mean squat. In truth, I could say the exact same thing about you. Further, what, pray tell, does maturity have to do with a debate on whether or not the Empire would beat the Federation into the ground?! I mean really, there's simply no way that maturity plays any part in such a debate.
Additionally, one doesn't have to wonder about whether I'm young/immature or anonymously pretentious or have some kind of shortcomings IRL (though I'm curious, what kind of shortcomings do you assume I have). They simply have to think "he's either trolling or flaming a troll". Because that's what you're post made you come off as: a troll.
You're 17. It makes sense now, so I'll go easy on ya.
The trolling you refer to is sort of a faulty assumption based on your own lack of objectivity. You attacked because I disagreed, that's not debate, that's a personal attack. (There is a difference.)
I believe my point holds validity just as you believe yours does. No crime in either case. If you wish to hold a debate of any kind, calling people an idiot IS instigating flaming. I simply replied in kind. (Sort of petty, granted.) I understand now, that you probably lack the experience to understand the difference and simply feel strongly about your opinion. No big deal. I hope at some point you do though, realize a difference between a personal attack and attacking a view.
You do realize that I'm not going to take you seriously, don't you. You've got all of three posts on this forum, all of them in this thread. For all I know, you only joined so you could post about how I'm wrong and it's dumb to debate this.
Secondly, your point has no validity, because it nullifies the entire point of a vs debate. Further, your attempt to talk down on me because I "lack the experience to understand the difference", is extremely offensive to me. I've got more experience and maturity than you credit me with. The problem is that a versus debate isn't conducive to a mature discussion. Objective, sure. Mature, no.
Additionally, your profile provides no information on your age. As I noted above, you've got all of three posts, all in the same thread. Average forum-goer wouldn't be too far off the mark to assume that you've only joined the forum to post in this particular thread, so you could tell us how debating SWvsST is dumb, because neither is based in real physics and aren't comparable*. You've got no accountability on this forum. I, OTOH, do. I've been a member for much longer than you, and have participated in the modding community for a good stretch before fading off into the background due to RL stuff.
Until you can provide some accountability for yourself, I will simply assume you are also a teenager who is pretending to be an adult because he's a pretentious ass.
*The last one (aren't comparable) would be slightly true, if, and only if, we were talking about which one we liked better. And even then, it's an enormous stretch, as it's a subjective thing more than comparability.
Your age is not a reflection of you as a person, (I apologize if I worded that poorly) it's simply gives me an understanding of why your post attacked. Probably because you assumed I thought it was "dumb" to debate. Notice nowhere in my original post did I say it was dumb. I just stated its a lost cause IMO for the reasons I gave.
You then called me an "idiot." THIS is where I replied in kind. I've actually been a member of this forum for quite awhile, I just don't post. I chose to give my opinion in this thread, and was thus, called an idiot. (This is why I rarely bother posting in forums, I find it trite to attack someone over the web.) Again, I do hope you understand the difference at some point between attacking a person vs. attacking a view. I have hope, as you do obviously see this as a subjective exercise.
I won't bother replying further, as you just feel the need to attack attack attack. (This IS normal for your age) NOT a judgement of character. If you are curious, I'm 30, I joined this site because I like this game, and of course the many great mods for it. It's a nice distraction from the trials and tribulations of "real life." Of course you can choose to believe or disbelieve that, as we all know anybody can claim to be anybody on the web. (Makes no real difference to me, nor does it have any real impact on my life.)
Also, contrary to your assumption, I don't have any issues with this debate, it endlessly fascinates me to read the different opinions. I just have a different one, and posted that mostly because I found it to be an amusing anecdote, (a scenario borrowed from a friend who works for Boeing that I think is an amusing take on it.) We all like to tear apart the show/movies and make our case for which is better however, we rarely tear apart the horrible inaccuracies that are apparent in both because it is after all, fiction.
In any case, its been entertaining going back and forth, and wish you the best.
I'm going to break this down:
1. Doesn't matter that you didn't explicitly say that you thought it was dumb. It was implied by your post.
2. You've been a member for all of some three months. That's not long. That's a pittance.
3. I most certainly do understand the difference between attacking a person and attacking a view. Obviously, you have such a low opinion of me that you have automatically decided what I can and cannot do.
4. I'm attacking you because you refuse to see the idiocy of claiming that since neither 'verse's stuff obeys the laws of physics as we know them, then they are incomparable and the debate is moot.
5. I don't see this as a subjective exercise. It's just that I have this need to fix stupid through the application of force.
6. We "rarely tear apart the horrible inaccuracies" because of the fact that we must use these two little things: "suspension of disbelief" and "objective analysis". The first allows us to believe that what we are looking at, is not, in fact, fiction, but is really a sort of documentary of the events entailed within. The second allows us to use simplistic mathemtical and scientific principles that cannot be invalidated (like Thermodynamics and Energy Conservation) to analyse the evidence.
7. I don't feel the need to "attack ad nauseum". I feel the need to fix your particular flavor of stupid. Believe me, if you met me IRL, then you'd have a whole different opinion of me. If you'd read my posts in other places, then you'd also realize I'm much nicer and more reasonable than what you naively think. It's just that your particular opinion of the versus debate isn't a particularly sensible (or indeed, logical) one. If you say "neither verse obeys the laws of physics, and therefore defies analysis", then any old thing goes and you get a debate that degrades itself into a useless chain of drivel and "my verse is better than yours".
And, while you have said that you won't reply to me again, that doesn't mean that you will never read this.
The bridge would probably be the only viable target on a good day.
The crew of the Executor's auxiliary bridge simply couldn't compensate for the loss of the primary bridge fast enough to save the Executor.
I'll second that, with the addendum that the reason the secondary bridge couldn't compensate was due to the Executor being trapped in DS2's gravity well.
Yes, a 900-kilometer diamter battlestation has a gravity well. It's cuz it's the size of a moon.
apologies, i mistyped
i meant *in rotj, the ssd instantly lost control when the bridge was destroyed. that period of vulnerability could easily be exploited
*double
Except that the Executor lost control due to being trapped in the DS2's gravity well. In any other situation, it would not instantly loose control.
You would have realized this had you read the post #70.
And its not like the Executor wasn't under a sustained bombardment from a fleet of MC80 Star Cruisers, there was bound to be other damage to her.
the ds ii was far smaller than an earth-sized planet, which star destroyers are parked above on a regular basis, and would thus have a much weaker gravity well. there is no reason for the engines/repulsorlifts to immediately fail and send the ship plunging into the equivalent of a moon's well, upon losing contact with the main bridge. as i said, imperial ships routinely orbit planets - hell, they're constructed in orbital shipyards -, and it's hilariously inept not to have an autopilot that would maintain orbit if something were to happen to the bridge.
also:
how so? the senior officers would all be on the primary bridge.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
