A non-debater's comparison of Trek, Wars, Bab5 and 40K

[Dabat]

I first joined this forum two days ago, up until then I considered Wars vs. Trek an interesting intellectual exercise, but one that other people wouldn't be that interested in. Being the analytical type of person that I am, a while back I made a list of comparisons of my four favorite sci-fi realities, Wars, Trek, Bab5 and 40K. To cover discrepancies within the realities themselves I had to decide just what information I would use. I decided that the closer they were to the original author/creator, the more 'official' they were (what I now know is called Cannon). And I tried to only use stuff from books (EU and the like) to fill in what the movies/tv/etc.. did not already show.


To reiterate, I am new to the debate at large. I have never participated in any online discussion on the abilities of Wars-vs-Trek until two days ago, and it seems unlike most people I have no driving desire to see one or the other win. I am a fan of all these sci-fi realities, which is the only reason I bothered making this list of comparisons in the first place.


I also made this list a while back, in the last few days of putzing around this forum and others like it my mind has been changed on a few things. But when I mentioned making a list like this, JediMasterSpock said he was interested in seeing the views of a non-debater. So I left my original comparisons as-is.








(unless the list is a simple yes/no, then the list is in order of best to worst, largest to smallest, etc..)






-Abilities of the ships:

--Warship Sizes
40K - Bab5 - Wars - Trek

One of the more simple comparisons, how big are they? And while the ave Wars 'warship' may only be 100-250 meters in length, Trek doesn't have anything to compare size-wise to an ISD or an SSD, so they were put in last place.



--Damage Sustainable
40K - Bab5 - Trek - Wars

This is a category that basically boiled down to size, with a few exceptions. While an ISD can take more damage then a Constitution class, most of the ships in Wars can not, and so this time Wars got bumped down to last.



--Shields common?
Bab5 (Never) - Trek (Always) - Wars (Always) - 40K (Always)



--Do the shields always block solid and energy?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Always) - Wars (No) - 40K (Depends)



--Overall Shield Strength
40K - Wars - Trek - Bab5*
*A few races in Bab5 have systems that act like shields (Humans and Abbai mostly) but are not (at least for the purposes of this comparison), but because such systems exist, Bab5 made it on this list. One race, the Drak, actually has shields, but as they never deal with anyone else in a friendly manner, they were not included in the list.


This section seems more telling then it actually is. 40K is at the top of nearly every list, while Trek and Wars are almost always near the bottom. But that is a simple factor of size. Things will begin to even out later on.





-Weapons
--Main Gun Strength
40K - Bab5 - Wars - Trek
Don't start flaming yet. Size and strength are, well the Strength of the Imperium of Man. While finesse is the realm of several of the others. It doesn't matter how big and powerful your gun is, it matters how well and how often you hit with it.

I should also note, based on what i've seen on the shows/movies. THat I rate most of the guns in tonnes or tens of tonnes of firepower, not kilotonnes or even megatonnes.



--Number of Main Guns
Wars - 40K - Trek - Bab5



--Torpedo Strength
40K - Trek - Bab5 - Wars



--Number of Secondary Guns
40K - Wars - Bab5 - Trek



--Max Weapons Range
Trek - 40K - Bab5 - Wars
Here is the first point at which we begin to see Trek dominate the list. They will end up taking first place nine out of twenty slots for capitol ships (four others are either yes or no).



--Rate of Fire
Trek - Wars - Bab5 - 40K



--Firing Arcs
Trek - Bab5 - Wars - 40K



--Accuracy/Targeting
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars




-Speed
--FTL Max Speed
40K (Rarely, and that is often seen as a terrible omen) - Wars - Trek - Bab5
Interaction with the Immaterium warps time in a malicious manner. It is quite possible for craft in 40K to arrive before they set out, but that normally only occurs so in that some disaster may befall them.



--On charted Routes
Wars - Trek - Bab5 - 40k



--Off Charted Routes
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars
While speeds in Trek, Bab5 and 40K remain relatively constant weither they know where they are going or not. Wars needs the charted routes to keep up their speed. Even short one second emergency escape jumps that would not even take them out of the solar system are seen as to hazardous to attempt due to interactions hyperspace has with gravity.



--Combat Speeds
Trek (FTL) - Bab5 - 40K - Wars



--Maneuverability
Trek - Bab5 - Wars - 40K




-Other
--Ship Reliability
Trek - Bab5 - Wars - 40K



-System Redundancy
40K - Trek - Bab5 - Wars
Just what it says. If a 40K ship didn't have so many redundant systems, the whole thing might never work at all. In Trek their redundant systems are part of why their ships are so reliable. While Wars seems to have never even heard of the term.



--Sensors
Trek - 40K - Bab5 - Wars
I don't want to see Wars at the end once again, but for example in RotJ an entire fleet of capitol ships couldn't tell that the Death Star still had it's shield up.



--Planet Destruction
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Yes, Very Rare) - Wars (Yes, Unique) - 40K (Yes, Very Rare)



--Capability of killing all life on a planet
Bab5 (Yes, Very Rare) - Trek (Yes, Rare) - Wars (Yes, Rare) - 40K (Yes, Uncommon)



--In Atmosphere Capability?
Bab5 (Some) - Trek (All) - Wars (Most) - 40K (Most)



--Planet Landing and Liftoff?
Bab5 (Rare) - Trek (Most) - Wars (Some) - 40K (Cargo/Landers Only)



--Total Fleet Size
40K - Wars - Trek - Bab5



--Speed of Fleet Reaction (How long it will take the to assemble and dispatch a reactionary battlegroup)
Trek - Wars - Bab5 - 40K





-Fighters (+Craft <60 meters)
--FTL?
Bab5 (Yes) - Trek (Yes) - Wars (yes) - 40K (No)



--FTL in Combat?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Yes) - Wars (No) - 40K (No)



--Speed in Vacuum
Trek (FTL) - 40K - Bab5 - Wars



--Demonstrated Maneuverability in a Vacuum
Bab5 - Wars - 40K - Trek



--Speed in Atmosphere
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars



--Maneuverability in Atmosphere
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars



--Anti-Warship Capable?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Some) - Wars (Some) - 40K (Some)



--Weapon Strength
Trek - 40K - Wars - Bab5



--Weapon Accuracy
Trek - Bab5 - 40k - Wars



--Weapon Range
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars



--Shields Present?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Yes) - Wars (Yes) - 40K (Almost Never)


-Shield Strength
40K (When they rarely appear) - Trek - Wars - Bab5 (Never)

[Praeothmin]

Nice, but I do have some small comments (I always do)... ;)

Trek doesn't have anything to compare size-wise to an ISD or an SSD, so they were put in last place.

Actually, the Federation doesn't ahve anything to match up with an ISD, size-wise, but ST as a whole has many ships that do.

The Kazon Carriers from Voyager (about 1800 meters), the Voth city ship (about 11 km), the Romulan D'eridex-class (between 1040 and 1200 meters), the Dominion super battleships (between 1200 and 4800 meters).
The Borg cubes, of which there are thousands, are all over 2km per side.

There are many races in ST besides the ones from the Federation, and some have huge ships.

[Dabat]

Like I should of noted that when I was referring to Trek, I was talking about the Federation. XD Sorry.

[Mike DiCenso]

Oh, on the planet destruction part, there is planetary destruction in Babylon 5; both the Vorlon and Shadows made use of planet killer devices that at least were capable of utterly wiping out the surface of a planet, if not actually destroying one outright.
-Mike

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

You mentioned using EU sources, yet on some of the Star Wars ratings it doesn't seem as if you used many of them. The sensor systems(while I am virtually unaware of that of the others) are quite capable, and, in one of the more recent additions to the EU, accurate long range range weapons are available. Also, while the movies would have more authority, the EU accuracy (especially 40 years after ANH) is much higher than in the movies. Also, 40 years after the empire, Standard ISDs are not extremely impressive. They have many Mon Calamari ships(like home one from RoTJ) which are over 15 kms in length.

That said, I am generally in agreement.

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

Ooh, forgot to make a comment on the vacuum speed, thing. This is more of a question, really. Some of the starfighters in the EU can travel near or faster than light speed without going into Hyperspace, in a vacuum. It is undeniable that the starfighters' atmospheric speeds are ridiculously slow(in some cases slower than current US military fighters), however. My question is whether or not this would effect your rankings?

In order to get the exact source I would have to do a lot of reading, I can only tell you that this was in multiple NJO books. The speeds were achieved by XJ3 X-wings. There are now XJ7s, which are faster. I think that this is first mentioned in Star by Star and subsequently, in the Enemy Lines duology.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I do appreciate seeing the original list. You said you've started to change your mind on a few things - about what, particularly? It's a pretty good overview, even if I don't agree with all of it.

While the Intrepid class has been sighted landing, and we have seen the NX-01 do an atmospheric strafe, I really don't think that most Federation ships are well prepared for atmospheric combat; but then, most space ships aren't, period, so...

I will say I think you're understating the ability to do a pretty good job of wiping out planetary life. I suppose it depends on how thoroughly you're defining it, as destroying all life on a planet is a mission something we see quite rarely (e.g., "The Chase" in TNG).

The ability to effectively wipe out a typical planetary civilization, or wreck a planetary ecology, seems to me pretty common in Trek, Wars, and WH40k.

There is definitely variation within each genre based on faction, of course. If nothing is specified, I usually assume someone is talking about the Federation, IoM, or GE (and I'm not honestly very familiar with B5, so I won't really comment on that at all).

[Jedi Master Spock]

You mentioned using EU sources, yet on some of the Star Wars ratings it doesn't seem as if you used many of them. The sensor systems(while I am virtually unaware of that of the others) are quite capable, and, in one of the more recent additions to the EU, accurate long range range weapons are available. Also, while the movies would have more authority, the EU accuracy (especially 40 years after ANH) is much higher than in the movies. Also, 40 years after the empire, Standard ISDs are not extremely impressive. They have many Mon Calamari ships(like home one from RoTJ) which are over 15 kms in length.

That said, I am generally in agreement.

Actually, I just remembered that Trade Federation battleships are very large (3+ km typical scaling, and quite round) - quite probably larger, though not longer, than the typical WH40k cruiser. Granted, they don't seem to have been very good warships for their size, but on the "average ship size" chart, the Trade Federation pre-CIS might rate above the IoM.

[Dabat]

Airlocke: My general treatment of the EU was this: "Movies first, EU only if the topic is uncovered" (Such as for planetary landings for large ships). I hadt to do this, because while the EU was often a good read, it was also often wildly inconsistent. And unfortunately, while I do like Star Wars, the topics of it's abysmal range, targeting, and to a lesser extent, speed in a vacuum (Though max speeds are not stated, combat speeds are shown and they are a bare few thousand km/h in RotS, as opposed to the 250-300 thousand km/h for the Imperium of Man).

As for their sensors, it could be that they are very good, but designed to be only short ranged. I do not remember what book I was reading, but an ISD was scanning for another capitol ship, and it's max effective sensor range was 200 km. This did not change my mind on anything, it was just another nail in the coffin in this list for Wars having comparatively good sensors.

I want to state again that I do not dislike Wars, I actually like it better then Trek (I know, I know, Blasphemy). But I also accept it for what it is. High Science Fantasy with a comparatively low tech level when compared to other sci-fi realities. The anachronisms and fronter attitude of many of the worlds are part of my enjoyment.



Jedi Master Spock: Trek, and to a lesser extent Wars, got their firepower upped (though from what I have seen, I still don't rate the firepower of their beam weapons above the decitonnes), Wars got it's Torpedo strength upped (capitol class missiles). Wars would Jump up in Combat Speed to 3ed (It should of been there already, I typoed). That's pretty much it, I haven't seen much to change my mind yet. Though i am curious, what parts do you not agree with?

I agree that most Trek ships are not designed to land, but as they do not use directed thrust for propulsion, and as I do not recall seeing one that had landed not being able to take off again, I figured the ability to take off after being forced to land is something that is not uncommon.

For killing all life, I should of put in a note that I meant that to be a standered unmodified ship, as in if the order were to be given, a ship could just carry out the mission and would not have to put in to port or recieve an upgrade first.



Mike: They didn't destroy the worlds, they just rendered them uninhabitable, There are a few scenes where they clearly showed the worlds still in existence after having the weapons used on them.

-Adendum: It is possible the Vorlon weapon actually destroyed the world it was used on, as we never actually saw it's effect, we were just told abut it's use, but the Shadow weapon definately left the world in it's orbit.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Though i am curious, what parts do you not agree with?

There are a few things....

I agree that most Trek ships are not designed to land, but as they do not use directed thrust for propulsion, and as I do not recall seeing one that had landed not being able to take off again, I figured the ability to take off after being forced to land is something that is not uncommon.

Well, the Intrepid class actually has landing gear. The one time we saw a Galaxy class land, IIRC, it crashed and wasn't going to take off again. Most cruisers are not intended to land.

On the other hand, in Star Wars, we've seen the main line capital ship of the Republic landing and taking off. A Star Trek capital ship is more likely to survive an uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry; a Star Wars capital ship is more likely to be designed to fight in atmosphere. In fact, the opening battle of ROTS seems to take place in the upper atmosphere.

For killing all life, I should of put in a note that I meant that to be a standered unmodified ship, as in if the order were to be given, a ship could just carry out the mission and would not have to put in to port or recieve an upgrade first.

That's precisely what we see in "The Chase" - a Klingon Bird of Prey conducting an impromptu extermination of [almost] all life on a planet using on-board equipment. The E-D ran the risk of doing it accidentally in "A Matter of Time," again by triggering a catastrophic chain reaction in the atmosphere.

Star Wars ships generally don't have quite as versatile weapons, or as powerful weapons, but most of them have quite a bit of endurance, and can cause (at the minimum) severe ecological damage. I really see the ISD as the standard warship of the GE, with anything else being a support vessel. And I know Exterminatus orders get talked up a lot. I suppose it's usually not a single-ship mission, though.

Now, the other points:

--Shields common?

Here's one that puzzled me, because you also had:

--Shields Present?

With different answers. Personally, I've always had the impression that shields are not so universally present in WH40k as they are in Trek and Wars.

--Overall Shield Strength

This one I would put UFP over GE. I'm not as sure where to put IoM, since it really depends on weapon strength.

--Damage Sustainable

In this category, I'm actually not so confident in putting Trek above Wars, as you do. It is true that in Star Wars, you have the meme of some blow striking a particularly vulnerable location and blowing the ship up, but UFP ships have a tendency to go up suddenly if you hit antimatter containment.

--Main Gun Strength

Here I very much disagree with you. Now, while some IoM ships have very powerful main guns, a turbolaser cannon on an ISD does not measure up to the phaser banks of a GCS. The one can blow a hole in the side of a ship; the other can disintegrate large portions of a ship.

Now, they do, of course, have more guns, and usually fire multiple batteries at a time, while a Trek ship will usually focus all its firepower into a single beam.

--Accuracy/Targeting
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars

I'm going to disagree a bit here. True, GE ships engage at shorter ranges, so obviously they're not going to be scoring hits at the longer ranges of engagement at all. However, within the range they actually fight, I don't think their accuracy measures up that poorly compared to the IoM. When I think about how much trouble IoM ships have shooting down torpedoes, compared to how much trouble GE ships have hitting similarly sized corvettes, I'm just not convinced.

--On charted Routes
Wars - Trek - Bab5 - 40k

--Off Charted Routes
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars

I mainly think it's worth making another distinction here. So for Star Wars, charting seems to make a huge difference, but for Star Trek, it is distance that makes a huge difference. Over short ranges (<1,000 light years) a Constitution class can match or possibly exceed the speed of the Rebel fleet making the Sullust-Endor run. Over long distances, UFP ships aren't even necessarily faster than IoM ships (although far more reliable).

--Anti-Warship Capable?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Some) - Wars (Some) - 40K (Some)

I would put UFP (Most) - GE (All) here. Trek fighters are relatively rare, but runabouts and the occasional fighters all are capable of engaging warships. "Most" would be if we include non-warp capable shuttles, which are usually not counted fighting craft.

Similar thing with Star Wars. All fighters - even the tiny Jedi starfighters - are up for making attack runs on capital ships. We even see TIE fighters do it.

--Demonstrated Maneuverability in a Vacuum
Bab5 - Wars - 40K - Trek

I think you're underrating Trek fighters here. We simply don't see them onscreen often enough to leave an impression. Small Trek craft can pull c-fractional tight formation maneuvers (see TNG: "The First Duty"). We've seen Sulu and Paris pull some very tight bits with shuttles and the Delta Flyer, too.

I would at least move the UFP over the IoM in this category. If we're including linear acceleration as well as turning ability, I would also put the UFP over the GE. There should be something said about how common fighters are, though. The UFP may have quite good "fighter" craft taken on the whole, but they're quite rare.

[Praeothmin]

JMS, about atmospheric flight, although I agree that most UFP ships don't necessarily have the ability to land, they all seem pretty able to fly in atmosphere without any problems.

We've seen Voyager do it many times, the Enterprise from TOS did it many times.
Why should we assume that only one or two ships can do it, when they're all using different versions of the same technology?

[Mike DiCenso]

Mike: They didn't destroy the worlds, they just rendered them uninhabitable, There are a few scenes where they clearly showed the worlds still in existence after having the weapons used on them.

-Adendum: It is possible the Vorlon weapon actually destroyed the world it was used on, as we never actually saw it's effect, we were just told abut it's use, but the Shadow weapon definately left the world in it's orbit.

The Vorlon PK was used on several worlds, actually. Ventari 3, Tizino Prime, and Dura 7, among possibly others attack. However, the evidence is very sketchy as to what was actually done to each of the target planets. Some indications are that there is total destruction of the target planet, and others that a massive surface bombardment that might leave a few survivors also occurs. Unlike the Shadow PK, we never actually witness what happens. At least one scene in "Falling Toward Apotheosis" shows a PK moving through asteroid-like rock shortly after having attacked Ventari 3.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Mike: They didn't destroy the worlds, they just rendered them uninhabitable, There are a few scenes where they clearly showed the worlds still in existence after having the weapons used on them.

-Adendum: It is possible the Vorlon weapon actually destroyed the world it was used on, as we never actually saw it's effect, we were just told abut it's use, but the Shadow weapon definately left the world in it's orbit.

The Vorlon PK was used on several worlds, actually. Ventari 3, Tizino Prime, and Dura 7, among possibly others. However, the evidence is very sketchy as to what was actually done to each of the target planets. Some indications are that there is total destruction of the target planet, and others that a massive surface bombardment that might leave a few survivors also occurs. Unlike the Shadow PK, we never actually witness what happens. At least one scene in "Falling Toward Apotheosis" shows a PK moving through asteroid-like rock shortly after having attacked Ventari 3.
-Mike

[Dabat]

Though i am curious, what parts do you not agree with?

There are a few things....

I agree that most Trek ships are not designed to land, but as they do not use directed thrust for propulsion, and as I do not recall seeing one that had landed not being able to take off again, I figured the ability to take off after being forced to land is something that is not uncommon.

Well, the Intrepid class actually has landing gear. The one time we saw a Galaxy class land, IIRC, it crashed and wasn't going to take off again. Most cruisers are not intended to land.

On the other hand, in Star Wars, we've seen the main line capital ship of the Republic landing and taking off. A Star Trek capital ship is more likely to survive an uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry; a Star Wars capital ship is more likely to be designed to fight in atmosphere. In fact, the opening battle of ROTS seems to take place in the upper atmosphere.

You are right, I should up wars landing to at least most. Though with the exception of the aformentioned crash landing. Going in atmosphere and/or going low never seemed to be a problem for their ships (admittedly they were mostly shuttles) . But as their capitol ships do not use directional thrust for manuvering, I made the assumption that they could take off again if they have to land, weather or not they were designed to.

For killing all life, I should of put in a note that I meant that to be a standered unmodified ship, as in if the order were to be given, a ship could just carry out the mission and would not have to put in to port or recieve an upgrade first.

That's precisely what we see in "The Chase" - a Klingon Bird of Prey conducting an impromptu extermination of [almost] all life on a planet using on-board equipment. The E-D ran the risk of doing it accidentally in "A Matter of Time," again by triggering a catastrophic chain reaction in the atmosphere.

Star Wars ships generally don't have quite as versatile weapons, or as powerful weapons, but most of them have quite a bit of endurance, and can cause (at the minimum) severe ecological damage. I really see the ISD as the standard warship of the GE, with anything else being a support vessel. And I know Exterminatus orders get talked up a lot. I suppose it's usually not a single-ship mission, though.

I will differ to you on the anti-meterial abilities of Wars and Trek ships against a planet, though I did mean killing all life, or at least the vast majority of it, not just wrecking the ecosphere. Though as a note on Exterminatus; every time it has been described in the fluff it has always been a single ship doing the dead, other ships mentioned as being present were always tenders/supply ships, or the rest of a battlegroup for force of numbers. But often the ship doing the dead is the only one mentioned being in the area at all. (Secondary note: Extermanitus is normally carried out via specialized ordnance, not by the main guns of the ship)

Now, the other points:

--Shields common?

Here's one that puzzled me, because you also had:

--Shields Present?

With different answers. Personally, I've always had the impression that shields are not so universally present in WH40k as they are in Trek and Wars.

In the first section I was specifically referring to warships. In 40K shields are universal on any ship that travels the immaterium, ie all warships and cargo ships, without the void shields warp travel is not possible. For the larger ships, and they do seem to need to be of some size, they've never mentioned one not having shields (Even system defense moniters and in system cargo ships are normally mentioned as having some shielding to keep away rocks and debris).

Like I said however, their shielding tech does seem to be size based (Or maybe it is just that Dagon likes hamstringing the Imperium), as smaller craft, fighters and the like, are stated to not have shields. This extends to other small craft, and with the exception of pre-Dark Age craft or some Heri-tech'd modified vessel (or Orkish gene memory), is a universal.

--Overall Shield Strength

This one I would put UFP over GE. I'm not as sure where to put IoM, since it really depends on weapon strength.

--Damage Sustainable

In this category, I'm actually not so confident in putting Trek above Wars, as you do. It is true that in Star Wars, you have the meme of some blow striking a particularly vulnerable location and blowing the ship up, but UFP ships have a tendency to go up suddenly if you hit antimatter containment.

You might be right on shield strength, but that one is pretty hard to determine, it was one of the issues I spent debating as I was writing this. Damage sustainable is also a tossup., my final decision on that was based on the fact that in show they mention the hull of the Trek ships are far stronger then steel, better meterials and hull sustaining force fields (Especially the force fields), while we have not had any such conformation from Wars.

--Main Gun Strength

Here I very much disagree with you. Now, while some IoM ships have very powerful main guns, a turbolaser cannon on an ISD does not measure up to the phaser banks of a GCS. The one can blow a hole in the side of a ship; the other can disintegrate large portions of a ship.

Now, they do, of course, have more guns, and usually fire multiple batteries at a time, while a Trek ship will usually focus all its firepower into a single beam.

That's one of the things i've changed my mind about, though I don't quite agree with you about all of them being weaker. I'd be willing to bet the heavy turbolaster packs more punch then the standered phaser bank, but then again, an ISD's targeting system cant lock on to it's ass with a map and both hands tied behind it's back.

--Accuracy/Targeting
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars

I'm going to disagree a bit here. True, GE ships engage at shorter ranges, so obviously they're not going to be scoring hits at the longer ranges of engagement at all. However, within the range they actually fight, I don't think their accuracy measures up that poorly compared to the IoM. When I think about how much trouble IoM ships have shooting down torpedoes, compared to how much trouble GE ships have hitting similarly sized corvettes, I'm just not convinced.

The opening sequence of Episode IV disagrees with you. XD

All joking aside, from what the movies showed, it seemed that the best the Wars ships could hope for beyond point blank range was spray and pray, though I admit it possible I am biased slightly against the teck level in Wars. While in the same situations, according to Battlefleet Gothic, the IoM scores hits 33% of the time or better, not nessacerally damaging hits, but at least they hit.

--On charted Routes
Wars - Trek - Bab5 - 40k

--Off Charted Routes
Trek - Bab5 - 40K - Wars

I mainly think it's worth making another distinction here. So for Star Wars, charting seems to make a huge difference, but for Star Trek, it is distance that makes a huge difference. Over short ranges (<1,000 light years) a Constitution class can match or possibly exceed the speed of the Rebel fleet making the Sullust-Endor run. Over long distances, UFP ships aren't even necessarily faster than IoM ships (although far more reliable).

huh, I didn't really know that about Trek, though I suppose it does make sense.

--Anti-Warship Capable?
Bab5 (No) - Trek (Some) - Wars (Some) - 40K (Some)

I would put UFP (Most) - GE (All) here. Trek fighters are relatively rare, but runabouts and the occasional fighters all are capable of engaging warships. "Most" would be if we include non-warp capable shuttles, which are usually not counted fighting craft.

Similar thing with Star Wars. All fighters - even the tiny Jedi starfighters - are up for making attack runs on capital ships. We even see TIE fighters do it.

Yes, but a craft like Solo's 'Falcon were not, nor are unarmed shuttles, though you are right and those should be upped to '(Most)'. I suppose just calling them craft under 60 meters was a little too vague.

--Demonstrated Maneuverability in a Vacuum
Bab5 - Wars - 40K - Trek

I think you're underrating Trek fighters here. We simply don't see them onscreen often enough to leave an impression. Small Trek craft can pull c-fractional tight formation maneuvers (see TNG: "The First Duty"). We've seen Sulu and Paris pull some very tight bits with shuttles and the Delta Flyer, too.

I would at least move the UFP over the IoM in this category. If we're including linear acceleration as well as turning ability, I would also put the UFP over the GE. There should be something said about how common fighters are, though. The UFP may have quite good "fighter" craft taken on the whole, but they're quite rare.

[/quote]


I'll explane my reasoning for all of that here (this was another area where I had a lot of internal contention). Bab5 got the top slot for directional thrust and their demonstrated use of it. Wars got next, despite directional thrust, for showing off tight turns and rapid acell/decell in Ep. 2. 40K came next also for their use of directional thrust, but I doubted the IoM could match what Wars showed. Trek came last because, from what I have seen, they had nothing that could compare. I really do think they should be higher, but I had no evidence for why that would be.

[Mike DiCenso]

That's precisely what we see in "The Chase" - a Klingon Bird of Prey conducting an impromptu extermination of [almost] all life on a planet using on-board equipment. The E-D ran the risk of doing it accidentally in "A Matter of Time," again by triggering a catastrophic chain reaction in the atmosphere.

Almost all the life? It destroyed all of it:

WORF: Some kind of plasma reaction is consuming the lower atmosphere.
PICARD: Can we stop it?
WORF: No, sir. The reaction is global.
DATA: All life on the planet is being destroyed, sir.
RIKER: Why would anyone want to destroy all the life on an uninhabited, neutral planet with no strategic importance whatsoever?


Let us not forget General Order 24, which was to be carried out, if Kirk and the landing party being held captive were not released. Kirk describes it as:

"All that it means is that I won't be around for the destruction. You heard me give General Order Twenty Four. That means in two hours the Enterprise will destroy Eminiar Seven."

Scotty later quantifies it further when giving an ultimatum to Anan Seven:

Open a channel, Lieutenant. This is the commander of the USS Enterprise. All cities and installations on Eminiar Seven have been located, identified, and fed into our fire-control system. In one hour and forty five minutes, the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed.

So in the TOS-era, a Constitution class starship could wipe out the surface of a planet, possibly within hours.
-Mike