5 Venators vs 2 excelsiors and 1 Ambassador

[StarWarsStarTrek]

You guys know what I'm going to say. MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Seriously though, 10^24 watts for the win.

You know that posting the same refuted crap is pointless right fix the premise your calculations are based upon in regards to the fact that even at 99% mass lightening the DS still rips itself apart when it accelerates.

Sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard yet. You're seriously denying the power of a soft sci fi vessel on the basis of it being impossible? ROFL! Visual evidence shows the ship doing it, and in sci fi, if it's shown going at that fast then it can go that fast. The DS doesn't rip itself apart because it has uber technoblabble metal.

Seriously. Using that logic, Star Trek doesn't have warp because it's impossible. They don't have transporters because they're impossible. They can't move at relativistic speeds because zomg it would rip itself apart.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

The Venators are at a massive, massive disadvantage.

1) Inferior range. ST ships can engage at hundreds of thousands of kms away and typically engage in hundreds to thousands of kms.

There is no instance in Star Trek in which a battle larger than a 1 to 1 is fought entirely beyond visual range.

2) Inferior accuracy. Venators prefer the 'spray and pray' tactic. That may work for their setting, but against an enemy that could easily hit a Venator farther than any gunner could ever hope to see, that's going to be a problem.

Complete and utter bullshit. Prove that they use spray and pray.

3) Inferior firepower design. Beaten to death here, but SW firepower is so inferior that not even using late TOS and inbetween series Ambassador is going to even the field. Maybe if these were 22nd century ships, it'd be more interesting but 23rd and 24th easily take this.

10^24 watts for the win. You seriously have no idea how ridiculously powerful that is. And you can deny it all the fuck you want, but it's written figuratively in stone, and it's coincidentally basically exactly perfectly scaled with the Death Star's power generation.

4) Inferior ship designs. Not even commenting on the technology, but rather the design theories. Venators still use guns that have low range and horrible accuracy even within that range. Their design favors heavy broadsides and no apparent torpedo/missile designs. Trek on the other hand, makes use of a phaser/torpedo design that allows for far greater ranges and more accurate scores. Even if their weapons, range, and defenses were all on the same level, Trek ships win simply for the sake of better design theories.

No. Venators have missile tubes. Check your facts.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Problems with problems:
1) Hypermatter is not canon. It never was, and never will be, unless Lucas changes his mind.
2) Then for what? Star Wars ships use fusion. Star wars ground vehicles also probably use fusion, since they have fusion reactors small enough to be carried in backpack. So why use 10 different fuels when only one will make it? That will be analogous to nuclear submarines carrying timber, coal and oil.
3) The scene is cut, yes. But it is only thing we do have about fuel, althought irrelevant in regards to power production.
4) True. I was simply trying to determine what kind of fuel they use.
5) Given that ships are rising from ground, and that it is enough to propel them to orbit... it is also in line with firepower calculations, so it stands.

1. Wrong. Every single quote George Lucas made that even suggests the EU being non canon refers to expanded stories, such as post ROTJ stuff or presumably pre PT stuff. He has shown absolutely no problem with reference guides he approved and in some cases even requested on his own movies.
2. Uh, the flak cannons? Backup engines? Daily stuff like life support? We don't know, but we don't witness it being burned or used at all.
3. No, the scene was cut, and it's non canon.
4. You're not one of those people who thinks that Star Wars uses diesel fuel, are you?
5. It's enough to propel ships of unknown mass into orbit at unknown speeds while their engines are at an unknown power setting. Your calculations are basically assuming 0% efficiency, which is ridiculous. It also only uses one example, and an extremely ambiguous one.

Using only one example for calculations, I could use any of the ridiculously low end Trek showings, such as getting owned by a megajoule level impact, or even a mid end one of the suggesting the destruction of a hollow 5/10 km asteroid. Should we use those?

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Complete and utter bullshit. Prove that they use spray and pray.

LOL, check out the angle of those shots some would miss is the enemy ships were almost nose to nose.


http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6849/hoobastank.jpg

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard yet. You're seriously denying the power of a soft sci fi vessel on the basis of it being impossible? ROFL! Visual evidence shows the ship doing it, and in sci fi, if it's shown going at that fast then it can go that fast. The DS doesn't rip itself apart because it has uber technoblabble metal.

OH OH fallacy alert.....that is not my basis at all but nice try.

Even the most wanked non canon numbers for durasteel would not help it, it NEEDS and has inertial dampening that reduces the mass to almost nothing, the very fact we see people walking about when they accelerate to hyperspace or high STL velocities without batting a eyelid or missing a step PROVES they have inertial dampening to a point than mass reduced to the point it is irrelevant.

Seriously. Using that logic, Star Trek doesn't have warp because it's impossible. They don't have transporters because they're impossible. They can't move at relativistic speeds because zomg it would rip itself apart.

A continuation of the strawman fallacy you created claiming i am dismissing it due to its impossibility will not help you. We have clear material in every episode every time they accelerate or go to hyperspace that mass is reduced to a 0 or a point so close to it that it does not matter.

As such any claims made using the power required to move mass are meaningless.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

OH OH fallacy alert.....that is not my basis at all but nice try.

Even the most wanked non canon numbers for durasteel would not help it, it NEEDS and has inertial dampening that reduces the mass to almost nothing, the very fact we see people walking about when they accelerate to hyperspace or high STL velocities without batting a eyelid or missing a step PROVES they have inertial dampening to a point than mass reduced to the point it is irrelevant.

How does it prove it? How do you know that it isn't because the Death Star's hull is super tough, and/or its shields are super tough?

A continuation of the strawman fallacy you created claiming i am dismissing it due to its impossibility will not help you. We have clear material in every episode every time they accelerate or go to hyperspace that mass is reduced to a 0 or a point so close to it that it does not matter.

As such any claims made using the power required to move mass are meaningless.

Prove this.

[Trinoya]

How does it prove it? How do you know that it isn't because the Death Star's hull is super tough, and/or its shields are super tough?

Because if its hull was that tough it could RAM planets to destroy them and not think twice...

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

How does it prove it? How do you know that it isn't because the Death Star's hull is super tough, and/or its shields are super tough?

What the hell difference would shields make to inertia and even the most absurd claims regarding wankonium type materials in star wars would not help.

Prove this.

You know when they go to hyperspace and even occasions they accelerate to supposedly high STL speeds?, remember all the guys walking about that do not get reduced to a fine red mist?, that is the proof.

There you go although i am assuming that you are aware of a fella called Isaac Newton and a law (or even three actualy) of his regarding motion that includes inerta and mass ect, and that is just for starters.

If you are not i suggest you speak to Wong about it in regards to the claim you got from his site although it may upset him so id be careful how you do it or you will get banned. I predict that him or a buddy of his will focus on the fact the point is made on SFJ by a non rabid warsie and they will proceed to avoid answering in one way or another.

In fact im sure i saw a thread on here or another site regarding material stresses and loads for massive ships doing vast accelerations and how mass lightening/inertial dampening is a absolute requirement even with the most wanked claims of material str in any sci-fi.

[Lucky]

How does it prove it? How do you know that it isn't because the Death Star's hull is super tough, and/or its shields are super tough?

We are talking about the Death Star seen in the movies right? The Death Star that was shot by X-wng laser cannons, and had people die or get hurt on the inside of it because of those X-wing laser cannons. The one with the shields that are just magnetic fields that things easily pass through. That Death Star?

[Mr. Oragahn]

How does it prove it? How do you know that it isn't because the Death Star's hull is super tough, and/or its shields are super tough?

Because if its hull was that tough it could RAM planets to destroy them and not think twice...

It would need a klaxon.

[Picard]

Problems with problems:
1) Hypermatter is not canon. It never was, and never will be, unless Lucas changes his mind.
2) Then for what? Star Wars ships use fusion. Star wars ground vehicles also probably use fusion, since they have fusion reactors small enough to be carried in backpack. So why use 10 different fuels when only one will make it? That will be analogous to nuclear submarines carrying timber, coal and oil.
3) The scene is cut, yes. But it is only thing we do have about fuel, althought irrelevant in regards to power production.
4) True. I was simply trying to determine what kind of fuel they use.
5) Given that ships are rising from ground, and that it is enough to propel them to orbit... it is also in line with firepower calculations, so it stands.

1. Wrong. Every single quote George Lucas made that even suggests the EU being non canon refers to expanded stories, such as post ROTJ stuff or presumably pre PT stuff. He has shown absolutely no problem with reference guides he approved and in some cases even requested on his own movies.
2. Uh, the flak cannons? Backup engines? Daily stuff like life support? We don't know, but we don't witness it being burned or used at all.
3. No, the scene was cut, and it's non canon.
4. You're not one of those people who thinks that Star Wars uses diesel fuel, are you?
5. It's enough to propel ships of unknown mass into orbit at unknown speeds while their engines are at an unknown power setting. Your calculations are basically assuming 0% efficiency, which is ridiculous. It also only uses one example, and an extremely ambiguous one.

Using only one example for calculations, I could use any of the ridiculously low end Trek showings, such as getting owned by a megajoule level impact, or even a mid end one of the suggesting the destruction of a hollow 5/10 km asteroid. Should we use those?

1) Oh, you mean ICS? Book that was never approved by Lucas as anything, let alone reference guide, has crapload of mistakes and is in direct contradiction with canon? And is also defined to be part of EU?
2) Flak cannons use shells. Backup engines are most likely only backup fusion reactors, and life support systems are probably powered by main reactor assembly.
3) So we simply don't know what Star Wars uses as fuel. We only know they use fusion, and output. But novelization still tells us about liquid starship fuel, so it is irrelevant.
4) Diesel... vodka (or anything having alcohol as part of it)... propane... butane...
5) Then what will we use? And no, it is not 0% efficiency, it is 100% efficiency, since thermal radiation will increase as engine power increases.
6) It is only canon example we have, and my calculations fit well with canon firepower.

[Mith]

There is no instance in Star Trek in which a battle larger than a 1 to 1 is fought entirely beyond visual range.

The Wounded:

DATA: The warship is three hundred thousand kilometres from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit. The Phoenix is beginning evasive manoeuvres. It has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship. The Phoenix has powered up both phasers and photon torpedoes. The Phoenix is firing photon torpedoes.
(and one of the lights on the screen goes out)
MACET: He has destroyed our warship.
PICARD: Does the supply ship have any weapons?

Any questions?

Complete and utter bullshit. Prove that they use spray and pray.

It's all the fucking time:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJHRq5nbG8

Sorry for the shitty music, but here we go:

.35-.34

We see the Malevolence spraying the entire area with laser fire. We see several bolts fly waaay off the mark, to the point that it misses both the stations and the ships in the hundreds of meter range.

.43

Look at how the ship is bombarding the smaller one; several meters away from the hull, at point blank range we see the guns miss in a steady stream. It's not just one miss; it's numerous misses without actually adjusting the god damn aim.

1.08

More of the same, we see shots that are going wildly, wildly off the mark. It's not even fucking close.

And here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYwX7r9 ... ure=fvwrel

1.28:

We see bolts dozens of meters off the hull.

1.33:

We see the Venators here opening fire and just look at the mess! They're doing nothing more than blanketing the entire area with tubolaser fire.

10^24 watts for the win.

*yawn*

See the end of that last video, where T canon shows a distinct lack of such firepower.

You seriously have no idea how ridiculously powerful that is.

Oh no, I do. They just don't have it.

And you can deny it all the fuck you want, but it's written figuratively in stone, and it's coincidentally basically exactly perfectly scaled with the Death Star's power generation.

No it isn't. You want to know what is written in stone? Clone Wars. And we see sub kiloton firepower tossed around all the time. Again, last segment of that video. Ships tossing out firepower at each other. Lack of gigaton level firepower observed. We're looking at the firepower on par with the US MOAB.

No. Venators have missile tubes. Check your facts.

That they strangely never, ever seem to use, except in what case? ICS? Rare EU source? Either way, they never use them. Even against enemies vastly superior or inferior or on par with themselves. They just blanket the target with tubolaser fire while manually trying to adjust their aim.

Meanwhile, even visual Trek tends to hit at those ranges 80% of the time and are suggested to fight at hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

Yours does not.