Sothis wrote:... as it's not
really a versus site (though it does have a versus section), but I have my own site up and running:
http://www.meerkatmusings.co.uk
It's still very much a work in progress and combines a site with a blog, but hopefully it will prove interesting!
If you make a reply, please post it in this thread.
I may have gone a bit overboard and hypercritical at times, sorry.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses/ wrote: Going forward, it’s clear Idazmi7 isn’t going to address my points (made in other comments) about the poor accuracy of Federation weapons. Both ‘Way of the Warrior’ and ‘A Call to Arms’ show Deep Space Nine’s weapons missing large targets and ships moving in straight lines. I guess Idazmi7 suffers from selective blindness (he certainly does when it comes to his own video).
1) 'Way of the Warrior', 'Call to Arms', and Deep Space Nine fleet combat in general aren't very good examples do to dialog and visuals not matching up well to dialog. It often seems the visual effects crews doing the starships didn't read the scripts.
Have you ever noticed how no one uses their shields even when the problems are fixed, and they are suppose to be using shields?
2) Just because the shot goes flying off screen does not mean it is a miss. Weapons in Star Trek have ranges that are measured in light seconds(TNG: The Wounded,Etc) and AU(The Motion Picture and many others). You can place a particle beam on Mars, and take potshots at Starfleet Academy on Earth.
Conversely ranges are far shorter in Star Wars(Destroy the Malevolence trilogy).
3) It doesn't help ships in Star Trek tool around at high fractions of the speed of light if not faster(Star Trek: First Contact, and many others) while ships in Star Wars might as well be standing still by comparison.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses/ wrote: The recourse of the desperate. Unable to actually prove his point with anything other than gross misrepresentation of the facts, he decides to bar me from the discussion.
There is actually even more- several concurrent threads cropped up regarding different issues. He claims at one stage that Starfleet has 97,000 ships. His proof lies entirely in the registry system- there’s a ship with the prefix NCC 97000, therefore there must be 97,000 ships.
The size of the Federation's fleet is unknown though I've heard the writers of Deep Space Nine assumed at least 10,000 starships in the middle and later parts of the war. The Federation having 100,000 ships doesn't sound outlandish if you are counting things that would never be meant to see combat.
You also shouldn't forget planetary defense forces that aren't part of Starfleet. I seem to recall Vulcan and Earth having their own personal fleets.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses/ wrote: Of course the Federation fleet is not in one spot, but why is this even relevant? With 97,000 ships covering their territory, the Federation should be able to bring to bear a considerable number of vessels at any point within their territory to deal with any crisis. Instead, they were scrounging together a fleet to retake Deep Space Nine, a key strategic outpost!
1) It depends on how fast you think warp drive can be. Much like the hyperdrive in Star Wars mapping seems to greatly effect travel times. Space is a very dangerous place in Star Trek.
No hyperlanes and your hyperdrive might as well be a sublight drive as seen in the Destroy the Malevolence trilogy.
Mean while warp travel seems to slow to about 1,000c over long distances without maps, but can still be much higher in a sprint. Voyager also had a damaged warpcore the entire series.
2) You seem to forget that both sides had relatively evenly matched fleets during the Dominion war, and that either the Alpha Quadrant side could build ships at an insane rate or they had a huge number of ships at the start of the war. The losses were rather large do to shields not working
1)The Dominion did seem to have slightly more advanced technology then the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans, but not to a degree of say the Borg.
2) The two sides were evenly matched roughly speaking. 2,800 ships appearing for either side would be a great advantage for that side.
Space is big, and there is no kill like over kill. Without the limitations of something like Hyperlanes it is hard to block an attacking fleet.
ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TPM all clearly show that you can only enter and leave hyperlanes from a very limited area.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses/ wrote: There is but more to that discussion, such as my mentioning that NCC numbers could easily include runabouts (in fact they do), and quite possibly cargo ships and transports as well. NCC numbers may also be on record but referring to decommissioned ships (another point I made Idazmi7 aware of). His response was that Starfleet recycles the numbers, but we’ve only seen this happen with the Enterprise and possibly the Defiant, so it’s hardly reasonable to assume it happens with every registry.
Don't most runabout and shuttles we see share the NCC number with the ship they are stationed on?
The borg didn't use a LASER until it had disabled the Enterprise-D's shields. There is no contradiction because the laser was used on naked hull, and it wasn't just a laser, but tractor beams and other stuff as well.
And what evidence do you have beyond superficial appearance? The borg likes green glowy stuff, and disruptors and tractor beams are also green glowy things.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-2/ wrote: The problem with the no-laser argument is obvious. One type of laser proved ineffective in ‘The Outrageous Okuna’, so the assumption is that all types of laser weapon are ineffective against Federation ships, irrespective of power. To top it off, there is the further assumption that turbolasers in Star Wars share the same properties as the lasers in ‘The Outrageous Okuna’. Yet when the Borg cutting laser is described in such terms, suddenly it’s not really a laser and it’s just a name. The hypocrisy is annoying and also blatant.
1) Gravity will work equally well on all laser. Picard says the navigational deflector on the Enterprise-D is laser proof it is laser proof, and you have no contradictions of this from what i see. It doesn't hurt that the navigational deflector needs to be photon proof or the ship would be destroyed every time it used its faster then light drive.
2) You've provide no evidence that a Star Wars style "laser" will be able to get through a navigational deflector. N.F.E. and black hole levels of gravity are nasty things.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-3/ wrote: Firstly, he displays either ignorance about the timeline of the episodes (‘A Call to Arms’ comes before ‘Sacrifice of Angels’). Secondly, he confuses a tactical advantage as a sign that Dominion ships are significantly more powerful than Federation vessels (despite the fact that a Jem’Hadar attack ship couldn’t destroy a puny runabout in ‘Treachery, Faith and the Great River’). The Dominion’s ability to penetrate Federation shields was not due to the power of their weapons but the design of the weapon, and once this advantage was dealt with the two forces were on roughly equal footing, with some Dominion designs proving more powerful than their Federation counterparts, but also some Federation designs proving more powerful than some Dominion designs!
You do realize that Star Fleet was upgrading the runabouts throughout all of Deep Space Nine? A runabout from season one is not a runabout from later seasons.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-3/ wrote: Not only is Idazmi7 wrong about the prefix NCC (it has never been canonically defined), he assumes every registry number is recycled, even though this is not demonstrated. It is typically an honour reserved for famous ships, like the Enterprise, but it is hardly a given for every ship in the fleet! Additionally, Starfleet issues registry numbers to runabouts and for all we know, cargo ships and transports, which would inflate the registries in use without referring to military vessels.
As I recall, most runabout sized craft share the NCC number with its parent starship
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-3/ wrote: It’s funny how he criticises my use of Memory Alpha, yet if you look through the comments on his videos, he’s quite happy to use it himself when it benefits him. Nor does he provide a source for his claim about the prefix (though I suppose it’s a nitpick at the end of the day). He assumes that because the Enterprise’s registry has been recycled several times this applies to all Federation vessels, convieniently ignoring the fame of the Enterprise and how she’s traditionally been the flagship. He is also wrong about runabouts.
His reference to ‘Valiant’ is yet another example of wilful misrepresentation of the facts. In the episode, a Defiant-class ship by the name of Valiant goes up against a Dominion battleship said to be three times as powerful as a Galaxy-class starship. The Valiant attempts to exploit a supposed weakness in the enemy ship but the plan fails and the Valiant is destroyed.
While the case for is weak, I'm not seeing a case that it isn't done?
A fleet that you lack a fleet to counter will be a big problem.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-3/ wrote: His final reponse on the subject. I’ll take it as an admission on his part that he has no argument left and concedes the point.
As a final thought, one of the denziens of Stardestroyer.net pointed out the registry NCC-97000 actually comes from Star Trek Online, which is not a canon source! (many thanks to StarSword from SD.net for that nugget!).
Arguing fleet size in Star Trek is difficult to to a lack of information both in-universe, and behind the scenes.
For all practical purposes this happens repeatedly on screen, and we are even told the output of the weapon once.
Kirk's ship gets hit with a planet based weapon stated to be ten times what Saxton and Wong say the Death Star's super laser was capable of.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-4/ wrote: In ‘Survivors’, The Enterprise’s shields are knocked out by two 600GW bursts. That’s two 0.5 megaton blasts. Does Idazmi7 really believe the Death Star is less powerful than the Husnock warship in ‘Survivors’? Even the chain reaction numbers I’ve seen given for the Death Star are far higher than the laughable idea that Idazmi7 is suggesting.
1) You realize that there are anti-shield weapons in Star Trek, and the weapon you are talking about barely did anything to the hull. There was good reason Worf sounded confused. The transcript doesn't tell the whole story as Picard figured out what was going on well before the end of the episode because of the weapon you are talking about.
2) Given the powerful R.O.B. with a range seemingly measured in light years, we can't be sure anything seen or said in the episode is true.
3) You've already proven that you realize that different weapons have different interactions with shields so you come across as rather dishonest here. It's worse when you take into account the R.O.B. was the ship firing the weapon..
1) Roughly a third of the way through the planet in less then half a minute is not a small hole
2) Given they planned to generate plasma to melt the planet's insides this episode is one high end after another while the Feds are pulling their punches.
Key word is drill. That was a rescue mission, and the people they were trying to save were near where they were drilling.
They also didn't want the captors to know they were drilling the hole.
Sounds like Pen Pals or Inheritance. Both involve doing something to the core of a planet.
TNG: The Chase
We are not told exactly how it was done, but is basically sterilized the planet in a minute or two at most, and was done by a single cloaked ship. It's not that they can't easily kill everything on a planet or easily blow up planets if they want to in Star Trek, but that they don't because they are in a M.A.D. scenario with their neighbors.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-4/ wrote: Finally, we come to ‘The Die is Cast’, where the visuals are inconsistent with the dialogue and dialogue manages to be inconsistent with other dialogue. Not exactly bullet-proof evidence is it?
The visual evidence shows shockwaves passing over completely undisrupted planetary surface with none of the expected results of such huge destruction. The term ‘grasping at straws’ comes to mind.
The people doing the visuals for Deep Space Nine did a horrible job, but we know blowing up a planet in Star Trek with a fleet is rather easy as it's stated a thousand NX-01 could do it, and we see the results of a bombardment by a fleet armed with primitive(for the 24th century Federation) weapons in Booby Trap.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/the-idazmi7-responses-part-4/ wrote: Idazmi7 claims the 2800 ships were to take Deep Space Nine alone. Considering that the Dominion already held Deep Space Nine at this point, why would they need to send a fleet to take it? He is having to desperately twist events to try and justify his fleet numbers for the Federation (97,000), and he is backing himself into a corner in the process.
Because both sides were roughly evenly matched, and the wormhole being open for the Dominion means the FKR can't strike at those resources.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: . Imperial vessels look old, and in no way sleek or modern. Federation ships are therefore much more advanced.
Looks aren’t everything. A modern cruise liner looks a lot nicer and more modern than an AEGIS cruiser- I know which one would sink the other though. Imperial ships are designed for function- and that function is war. Who cares if they have fancy shiny controls or sleek aerodynamic designs? These things are not relevant where war is concerned.
1) I've never seen anyone argue that.
2) Imperial ships function is to be scary, and be jack of all trades and masters of none. Heck, over 50% of a Star Destroyer's volume seems to be dedicated to parasite craft and ground troops, with weapon tacked on as an after thought.
2.5) Fear over effectiveness is the Imperial way, and it works great for them so long as it's the ignorant and superstitious stone age spear chuckers they have to deal with.
3) You do realize that Starships in Star Trek are more like jet fighters then blue water craft?
4) The Federation builds ships intended to go into harms way with no back up, and come out on top, and then they furnish them like cruise ships.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: 2. Why is this about the Federation vs the Empire? Wouldn’t the Klingons, Romulans etc help?
Why would they? Did the Alpha Quadrant band together to fight the Dominion, who represented the biggest threat to them all bar the Borg? No, they didn’t- the Cardassians joined the Dominion, the Romulans had to be tricked into taking part on the Allies’ side, and the Breen later also joined the Dominion. A number of empires declared themselves neutral too- the Gorn and the Tholians spring to mind.
So there’s no reason to assume everyone would rally round to fight the Empire, although even if they did, it would not affect the outcome of a war.
Given how Imperials conduct themselves I doubt this conclusion. The Dominion has diplomatic skills the Empire does not.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: 3. Q would help the Federation. For that matter, so would any number of super-beings within the Milky Way.
Like they did when the Federation was threatened by the Borg, or the Dominion? They have never intervened to help, even when the problem was caused by them (Q introduced the Federation to the Borg, remember).
Furthermore, if Q did help, how is this a sign that the Federation can defeat the Empire? This is a copout- relying on super-beings to win, because the Federation can’t hope to.
The Q made sure the Federation won against the Borg and Dominion as Voy:Death Wish shows. They are casual time and universe travelers, and need not take overt action to ensure their favored side wins.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: 4. In the TNG episode ‘The Outrageous Okuna’, Picard scoffs at laser weaponry, claiming it wouldn’t even penetrate their navigational shields. Since the Empire uses turbolasers, this means Imperial weapons would be useless against Federation shields.
This argument falls prey to the ‘no limits fallacy’. It assumes that because Picard made no specific mention of the power of laser weaponry, it doesn’t matter how powerful the laser is- Federation shields can resist it. This is of course wrong.
Firstly, energy has to go somewhere. This is one of the cardinal rules of thermodynamics- energy cannot be destroyed or created. Lets say the Enterprise can withstand 70TJ of energy before her shields fail. Lets say she is hit by a laser carrying 700TJ of energy. That’s ten times the energy her shields can handle. If you listen to the ‘no laser’ crowd, 630TJ of energy just mysteriously disappears. We have never seen or heard of the Federation possessing the ability to make energy disappear.
Secondly, where does Picard say that no laser, of any type or power, is useless against Federation ships? It’s clear he is referring only to the weaponry he is immediately facing. A fact made all the clearer by how other lasers later on are effective.
The Borg cutting laser, as seen in both ‘Q Who’ and ‘Best of Both Worlds’, is described as a laser by Worf, a trained tactical officer, and this weapon is very effective.
Finally, why assume turbolasers from Star Wars have to be like real lasers? They can be seen, which means they travel slower than light- whereas a laser is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and would travel at the speed of light, thus not being visible.
You're going to want to rewrite this. Your understanding of physics appears lacking here as well as what a no limits fallacy is. It sounds like you are claiming that a L.A.S.E.R. can escape a black hole if the wattage is high enough.
A laser can only damage something if it can hit it. Gravity and N.D.E. fields for the win. Picard's statement is physically possible with known physics, and known Federation technology. Yield is irrelevant is the attack can never connect. Gravitational lensing is cool that way.
1) Modern militaries build exact copies of locations they plan to attack at times, and a holodeck makes this easy. I seem to recall an episode were they wish they had a holodeck on the Defiant for this very reason.
2) Morale is important.
3) Exercise is important.
3) You may want to question claimed planets VS planets the Empire actual uses for anything. How many Hoths, Tatoonies, Naboos does the Empire actually have VS productive planets.
4) Since when does the Epire move planets on a regular basis? Holodecks are easily moved to where you need them.
Replacators greatly simplafy logistics, and make it so a ship almost never needs to resupply. So long as they have fuel they are fine, and can build just about anything they need.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: Transporters would allow for the rapid deployment of troops, but they cannot get through shields, and magnetic fields (even low-level ones that occur naturally, or even simply thick rock or metals) can interfere with them. Imperial ships use jamming as a matter of routine, so there is no guarantee that they would work at all.
Here you try to pass off weird stuff as mundane, and ignore that transport through shields is possible, and these sorts of things only matter if you want what you are transporting to come out on the other end undamaged/alive.
Just because something is natural in Star Trek does not make them any less rare or exotic in the setting. The stars in TNG: Suspicions and Descent are prime examples of rare and exotic natural things that cause a problem while the more mundane versions do not.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/star-trek-vs-star-wars/common-trekkie-arguments/ wrote: 6. The Rebellion defeated the Empire, and they only hand a few dozen ships! Surely if such a paltry force could beat the Empire, the Federation could too!
The Rebels have ships that are of the same technological base as the Empire’s, and they didn’t defeat the Empire in open battle. They fought a guerrilla war, and attacked only when they thought they had the element of surprise. They ‘beat’ the Empire by killing the Emperor, and because the Emperor did not have an official heir, the Empire fell into infighting and civil war with several factions vying for power. Add to this mix the Rebellion continuing to sow seeds of disarray and with (if the end of the Special Edition of ‘Return of the Jedi’ is anything to go by) multiple worlds in open revolt, the Empire fell apart.
The Federation cannot hope to achieve this feat.
1) The Emperor never had the power to pass his "emergency" powers to anyone. There wasn't an Imperial tradition as you seem to claim. With his death, the sensate would need to grant someone else the "emergency" powers that let Palpitene become Emperor, but fat chance of that happening without several generations coming and going first.
2) A tricorder scan would be pretty much all the Federation would need to know everything there was to know about Star Wars technology. It's pretty handy to be able to scan things down to the quantum level.