I challenge darkstar to a debate

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Let me clarify how I look at things:
Say in ST, 90% of the time, we see or hear or are told that weapons are around the triple digit KT...
Then, you have 5-6% of low single digit KT, 1% of sub-KT effects, and 2-3% of multiple MT or single GT...
The percentages can vary a bit, it could be 85%, 5%, 2% and 8%, it doesn't matter.
The majority of effects place ST at triple digit KT (example number, not actual calculations), with a few higher or lower outliers that may be explained, and some that may not...
The facts are still that the majority shows lower power, much lower than the high-end examples, which cannot be explained by saying simply "variable yields"...
So I prefer to take everything into account, and try to find an "average" value that satisfies all we see, and sometimes I simply ignore the too ludicrous examples...

...

...

Are you conceding the debate, Mr. P?

And the same goes for SW, btw...

No, it doesn't. Triple digit kilotons doesn't work for even the most modest calculations of Base Delta Zero.

And even if it were true, and SW yields were triple digit kiloton, ISD's have more turbolasers that have more ammo (they haven't been shown to run out) than photon torpedos, and the SW turbolaser:shield ratio is lower than ST's photon torpedo:shield ratio, so SW shields would be stronger than ST shields by far.

I take the EU into account as well as the movies, but when there is a contradiction, I use the highest Canon as the deciding factor...

But most importantly, if I give ST the benifit of the doubt, such as using the term "variable yields" to explain things, I will do the same exact thing for SW...

So then I suppose that you use that to rationalize the ICS and various higher end sources supporting Star Wars, higher end yields that are non-existent for Star Trek.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

No, it doesn't. Triple digit kilotons doesn't work for even the most modest calculations of Base Delta Zero.

It does if you ignore the wank and bullshit exaggeration that go hand in hand with the BDZ.

100 ships could easily decimate a planet with triple digit KT and enough time.

[Praeothmin]

Are you conceding the debate, Mr. P?

What debate?

No, it doesn't. Triple digit kilotons doesn't work for even the most modest calculations of Base Delta Zero.

Which you will now prove with evidence, of course...
Oops, forgot who I was talking to... :)

So then I suppose that you use that to rationalize the ICS and various higher end sources supporting Star Wars, higher end yields that are non-existent for Star Trek

Yes, I use this to rationalize all the high-end examples in canon ST, and the absence of high-end examples in G-Canon SW, which are completely inconsistent with ICS bullsh... Hm, yields...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

What debate?

The Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. You admit that Star Wars wins the war, but that Star Trek wins ship to ship. But now you've established that you feel that both have triple digit kiloton yields, which actually gives SW the advantage ship to ship due to more guns, more ammo, longer range (but we don't have to argue that now), starfighters and a smaller weapon:shield ratio.

You didn't argue against this. You even cut that part out of your response. Thank you for conceding.

Which you will now prove with evidence, of course...
Oops, forgot who I was talking to... :)

It would take several kiloton nukes to destroy a large modern city. To reduce the surface of a planet into "smoking debris" in "a matter of hours" (even if we assume no slagging) with triple digit kiloton weapons, you'd need to fire literally billions of rounds or several million turbolasers per second.

Yes, I use this to rationalize all the high-end examples in canon ST, and the absence of high-end examples in G-Canon SW, which are completely inconsistent with ICS bullsh... Hm, yields...

You're contradicting yourself. By your earlier claim you should rationalize the ICS to make sense.

And what about the various extreme speed maneuvers in G canon, such as circumnavigating a gas giant in 30 minutes or slingshotting around a planet in seconds?

[Admiral Breetai]

longer range? call me when SW ships blast people from half a million kms away

better guns? bullshit when they can slag a world by accident or turn one into a brown pile of shit with what amounts to a ford pinto in space in under a minute call me

I'd like to see star wars vessels fly across the surface of a sun and generate a wake strong enough to actually lift a piece of solar material up causing it to smash into oncoming vessels

[Praeothmin]

It would take several kiloton nukes to destroy a large modern city. To reduce the surface of a planet into "smoking debris" in "a matter of hours"

And where does that come from?
Plus, the Defiant had enough firepower to "reduce the surface of the Founder's world to cinders"...

And what about the various extreme speed maneuvers in G canon, such as circumnavigating a gas giant in 30 minutes or slingshotting around a planet in seconds?

So you expect me to start the debate all over with you, using examples that were debunked long ago, but that you, of course, ignored, and you expect me to repost them here?

[Mike DiCenso]

Proof of what?
The full spread damaging the E-D?
IIRC, it was mentioned in BoBW...

No, it does not. It was a full-yield, full spread of torpedoes that could cripple the E-D at close range of only a few km comes from "The Nth Degree", and that was with shields up, but were under strain from the intense energy being output by the Cytherian probe. Prior to that, the E-D risked destruction from being too close to the Borg cube, if it fired torpedoes without shields in "Q Who?". But no yeilds, nor how many torpedoes is ever mentioned.

The Pegasus yields being around high KTs to low MTs?
As discussed in many other threads, these figures are as valid as the GT many try to push, as they assume a standard iron asteroid between 5 and 9 km in diameter...

But it's even worse if you assume that the E-D can tank 5 GT torpedoes, because then it means that a shuttle that can take at least one hit from such weapons will be even scorched by a hand Phaser...
Even if the firing ships had lowered their main weapons' power, you'll never lead me to believe they fired at sub-KT yields if their weapons can do GTs...

Again, a false comparison. You're confusing different issues here. Yes, a shuttle is insanely tough by modern real-life standards, but is nothing like a larger capital ship in toughness. The E-D would be severely crippled by several full-yeild torpedoes going off right next to it, even with shields. Unshielded, the E-D likely cannot surivive at all. Why would you expect a shuttle to survive even one such hit? Furthermore, we know from "The Nth Degree", that in the TNG-era, photon torpedoes on full are far more powerful than phasers. So again, you're arguing from ignorance.

You are basically arguing that a PT boat can survive one direct hit from a 16-inch battleship shell hitting it because a heavily armored battleship can survive several such hits.

As for the Pegasus asteroid, again a false dilemma issue on your part. The numbers do not make sense for the lower ones because they all assume the asteroid is igneous rock being broken apart into chunks of 10 meters. But that makes no sense given that other Federation starships can vaporize asteroids of tens of meters diameter (ST:TMP, "Booby Trap"), and can even vaporize a nickle-iron asteroid of 390 meters, leaving only tiny cm-sized debris. Applied to "The Pegasus" asteroid, and the numbers go up into the hundreds of megatons to single-digit gigaton range.

Yes, the E-D fired a single, well-placed Torpedo, which made the whole ship, including its engines and power plants, explode...
If Lursa and Betor had been better at aiming, if they had hit the Engineering section earlier, the E-D would not have had to take all those hits before exploding...

Watch the movie again. They did hit the E-D's engineering section with the torpedoes. Their problem wasn't aim, their problem was that they were attacking a far superior ship than their own. They lacked the weapons power to do the job right off. Their only trump card was the shield frequency bit. Without that, the E-D would have made mince-meat out of the BoP.

I agree, they were most likely firing at lower settings, but you will never make me believe weapons capable of GTs have such control that they can fire at sub-KT yields, the yields that would be needed for Geordi's deception with the hand weapons to be believable...

Of course they can. That's canon fact. Remember Reed's briefing on photonic torpedoes to Trip? You know, that bit about knocking the com array off a shuttle pod to putting a 3 km crater into an asteroid bit? Are you seriously suggesting that TNG-era torpedoes can't do better?

So you believe hand Phasers can fire a yields close to a KT?

No, but 1 GW per 20 square cm or less is plausable.

And you think it's consistent with a glancing hit from a high MT weapon?
You still don't see the problem with the difference in OOM?

With shields protecting it from the majority of the effects? Why is that such a problem?
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

No, it does not. It was a full-yield, full spread of torpedoes that could cripple the E-D at close range of only a few km comes from "The Nth Degree", and that was with shields up, but were under strain from the intense energy being output by the Cytherian probe. Prior to that, the E-D risked destruction from being too close to the Borg cube, if it fired torpedoes without shields in "Q Who?". But no yeilds, nor how many torpedoes is ever mentioned.

Ah, duly noted...

Again, a false comparison. You're confusing different issues here. Yes, a shuttle is insanely tough by modern real-life standards, but is nothing like a larger capital ship in toughness. The E-D would be severely crippled by several full-yeild torpedoes going off right next to it, even with shields. Unshielded, the E-D likely cannot surivive at all. Why would you expect a shuttle to survive even one such hit?

Again, we've seen, in TNG and in Voyager, shuttles taking Capital ship fire from Phaser-like weapons, fire that could damage and threaten the E-D or Voyager...
If these shots were even at 10% of their maximum, then a GT capable weapon would impart 100 MT on these shuttles...
Again, no hand weapon would even scorch ships that can take that...

Yes, Photorps seem a lot more malleable in their weapons control capacity, but that's easy to explain:
The least powerful version can simply be the unloaded Torpedo, and I have no problem believing they can control in percentage points, like 1%, 15%, or 33% loads, but I really, again, have a hard time believing they can control them to the point where they shoot at 0.00002%, for example...

They did hit the E-D's engineering section with the torpedoes.

Yes, with one of their last hits...
But I have to say, the whole battle was so retarded...
Riker should have spammed the BoP with a full torpedo spread the moment they fired...

With shields protecting it from the majority of the effects? Why is that such a problem?

Those shields have to be extremely powerful indeed...
Anyways, without having the battles available, I can't check if they always had shields, or if the shields failed at some point during the battles...

[Mike DiCenso]

Again, a false comparison. You're confusing different issues here. Yes, a shuttle is insanely tough by modern real-life standards, but is nothing like a larger capital ship in toughness. The E-D would be severely crippled by several full-yeild torpedoes going off right next to it, even with shields. Unshielded, the E-D likely cannot surivive at all. Why would you expect a shuttle to survive even one such hit?

Again, we've seen, in TNG and in Voyager, shuttles taking Capital ship fire from Phaser-like weapons, fire that could damage and threaten the E-D or Voyager...
If these shots were even at 10% of their maximum, then a GT capable weapon would impart 100 MT on these shuttles...
Again, no hand weapon would even scorch ships that can take that...

Again, you are arguing from ignorance. In TOS' "The Ultimate Computer", Kirk orders the Enterprise's phasers to 1/100th power. So they can control phaser power down to at least that much, and we know that phasers in the TOS-era were the prime weapon. In TNG, photon torpedoes are more powerful from a raw energy standpoint. Given the nature of photon torpedoes, you can easily control the amount of AM loaded on-board. And I have yet to see where a shuttle or runabout tanked a full-yield torpedo hit, either. In fact, we seldom ever see torpedoes against shuttles, nor even runabouts.

Yes, Photorps seem a lot more malleable in their weapons control capacity, but that's easy to explain:
The least powerful version can simply be the unloaded Torpedo, and I have no problem believing they can control in percentage points, like 1%, 15%, or 33% loads, but I really, again, have a hard time believing they can control them to the point where they shoot at 0.00002%, for example...

The E-D in "A Matter of Time" was able to control their phaser power output to within 0.06 TWs (60 GW). So why is that a problem?

Yes, with one of their last hits...
But I have to say, the whole battle was so retarded...
Riker should have spammed the BoP with a full torpedo spread the moment they fired...

No, it was on the first two hits:





So... you were saying?

Those shields have to be extremely powerful indeed...
Anyways, without having the battles available, I can't check if they always had shields, or if the shields failed at some point during the battles...

No torpedoes have been used against shuttles. Phasers can be controlled to very tight power output tolerances. This is all highest canon fact. You are also continuing to ignore contex and how tough a shuttle hull is compared to a large capital ship.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

Again, you are arguing from ignorance. In TOS' "The Ultimate Computer", Kirk orders the Enterprise's phasers to 1/100th power. So they can control phaser power down to at least that much, and we know that phasers in the TOS-era were the prime weapon. In TNG, photon torpedoes are more powerful from a raw energy standpoint. Given the nature of photon torpedoes, you can easily control the amount of AM loaded on-board. And I have yet to see where a shuttle or runabout tanked a full-yield torpedo hit, either. In fact, we seldom ever see torpedoes against shuttles, nor even runabouts.

As I said, I can easily believe they can control their weapons to percentage points, but again, if a TNG-era ship Phaser is capable of GT firepower, then even 1% of that would be 10 MT...
As I said, we've seen shuttles get fired upon by Capital ship Phasers in VOY and in TNG, so even if they fired at 1% of their power, that's a 10 MT hit the shuttle had to take...
Again, I don't remember if shields failed at one point or another, but look at it this way:
You GEN example is good, because it shows an unshielded E-D tanking hits that are, according to your ST calculations, most likely in the high MTs...
And yet, these shots do mostly surface damage...
From MT level weaponry...
And then, a hand Phaser is supposed to do create damage sufficiently credible to pass off as ship fire?

I'm sorry, but it's clear we'll never agree...
To me, this doesn't add up, and to you, it does...
I think we should just agree to disagree on this one...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

And where does that come from?

Star Wars Technical Journal.

Plus, the Defiant had enough firepower to "reduce the surface of the Founder's world to cinders"...

Which is obviously hyperbole. Unless if you think it do be literal, in which case you'll have to concede that the molten slag statements are literal (mind you, it doesn't go both ways. Not only is "cinders" a more common idiom than "molten slag", that latter was stated by several independent sources in the same context).

So you expect me to start the debate all over with you, using examples that were debunked long ago, but that you, of course, ignored, and you expect me to repost them here?

I could say the same for you. Notice how the "using examples that I debunked LOOONNNGGG AGO!" tactic works both ways?

But again, you just conceded that Star Wars not only wins the war, but wins ship to ship too. What more do you want to debate? Ground combat?

[Praeothmin]

Star Wars Technical Journal.

Ah, I see, so you once again use the EU to prove something the movies don't show...

Which is obviously hyperbole.

I agree, which is why the "molten slag" is also taken as hyperbole, especially seeing the absence of slaf at Dankayo, and that the only other slag examples we saw in the EU (and never in the highest canon) were cities, not entire planets...

you just conceded that Star Wars not only wins the war

This has always been my contention...

but wins ship to ship too.

Depends...
ISD vs Miranda-class?
ISD...
ISD vs Galaxy-Class?
GCS all the way...
Miranda vs Venator?
Toss-up...

What more do you want to debate?

Nothing with you... :)

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Ah, I see, so you once again use the EU to prove something the movies don't show...

The movies don't show a star destroyer ever firing at a planet. EU evidence need not be confirmed by the movies, they just need not be contradicted. In this case, it isn't. Again, you don't understand Lucasarts canon policy.

I agree, which is why the "molten slag" is also taken as hyperbole, especially seeing the absence of slaf at Dankayo, and that the only other slag examples we saw in the EU (and never in the highest canon) were cities, not entire planets...

I'M NOT USING ANY MOLTEN SLAG EXAMPLES HERE. I DON'T EVEN NEED THEM.

This has always been my contention...

I know that.

Depends...
ISD vs Miranda-class?
ISD...
ISD vs Galaxy-Class?
GCS all the way...

No, by your contention both have similar yields; triple digit kilotons (false, as you need at least megatons to fit with the SW: Technical Journal). Star Trek starships can typically take around 6 photon torpedos before their shields fail, sometimes more, sometimes less. Star Wars capital ships, however, can typically take hundreds or even thousands of turbolaser hits. Therefore, if you equalize weapon yield, you give Star Wars an enormous defensive advantage, even disregarding the fact that Star Wars capital ships have more guns that don't seem to run out of ammo.

Miranda vs Venator?
Toss-up...

No, the Miranda has 6 dual phaser arrays and 4 torpedo launchers, compared to 8 heavy dual turbolasers, 2 medium dual turbolasers, an unknown amount of other turbolasers, 52 laser cannons and 4 heavy proton torpedo launcher tubes. Equalizing weapon yield, the Venator comes out on top in firepower and way out on top in shielding.

Nothing with you... :)

So much for your thin veneer of having a moral high ground of some sort.

[Praeothmin]

EU evidence need not be confirmed by the movies, they just need not be contradicted.

AotC contradict ICS yields as has been shown here many times, TESB's self-exploding asteroids contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields, and RotS contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields...

I'M NOT USING ANY MOLTEN SLAG EXAMPLES HERE. I DON'T EVEN NEED THEM.

But you're still not explaining in any logical way how three ISDs could expell the atmosphere off a planet and leave only an evenly cratered surface...
I thought expelling atmosphere of a planet needed immense energy...
Wouldn't that leave the surface molten, or at least in a constant firestorm?

No, by your contention both have similar yields; triple digit kilotons

An ISD may have double-digit to low triple digit KT with its HTLs, while a GCS may have high-triple digit KT...
The ISD's ROF as seen in the OT is very low on its HTLs as witnessed in ANH, and TESB...
The GCS was shown firing full spreads of up to 5 torpedoes in one shot, and multiple Phaser shots in 1 second, so equivalent ROF...

Star Wars capital ships, however, can typically take hundreds or even thousands of turbolaser hits.

Really?
Like in RotS, where the ships got owned by a dozen shots, or TCW, where again, a few dozen shots by Fighters destroyed Venators...
Or even better, like in TESB, where 1 asteroid destroys the bridge of an ISD, or in RotJ, where 1 A-Wing destroys the bridge of the SSD...

I'd like to see your evidence of those "hundreds of shots"... :)

So much for your thin veneer of having a moral high ground of some sort

What?
Saying I don't like to debate with you is wrong?
Hey, I don't mind debating people who come up with evidence, calculations, non-edited screen shots or videos, but you're not that kind of a person...

[StarWarsStarTrek]

AotC contradict ICS yields as has been shown here many times, TESB's self-exploding asteroids contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields, and RotS contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields...

Is this how you think proof is provided in a debate? In some ways, you'd make a good politician, as you have mastered the art of dodging the question. Of your rebuttal, I only see one phrase that even approaches specificity, while the rest are answering the question by restating the claim. I'm asking you to provide examples, not to vaguely claim that said examples exist.

But you're still not explaining in any logical way how three ISDs could expell the atmosphere off a planet and leave only an evenly cratered surface...
I thought expelling atmosphere of a planet needed immense energy...
Wouldn't that leave the surface molten, or at least in a constant firestorm?

It left the surface atomized, but obviously the ISD's were using airbursts. Either way, you can't refute the textual evidence that the atmosphere-ripping event did canonically occurred, so what's your point?

An ISD may have double-digit to low triple digit KT with its HTLs, while a GCS may have high-triple digit KT...

Which still gives ISD's the firepower advantage, if you were to do the math and count up its guns and RoF.

But you're wrong, as double digit to triple digit kilotons cannot burn a planet so that there are "No survivors. No witnesses." or "turn the surface the surface of a planet into smoking debris in a matter of hours."

The ISD's ROF as seen in the OT is very low on its HTLs as witnessed in ANH, and TESB...

Which contradicts your point, since low RoF kiloton weaponry cannot even cause a nuclear holocaust "in a matter of hours", let alone turn a planet's surface to "smoking debris" or leave "No survivors. No witnesses".

The GCS was shown firing full spreads of up to 5 torpedoes in one shot, and multiple Phaser shots in 1 second, so equivalent ROF...

Until it runs out of photon torpedos. ISD's don't run out of turbolasers.

Really?
Like in RotS, where the ships got owned by a dozen shots, or TCW, where again, a few dozen shots by Fighters destroyed Venators...
Or even better, like in TESB, where 1 asteroid destroys the bridge of an ISD, or in RotJ, where 1 A-Wing destroys the bridge of the SSD...

I'd like to see your evidence of those "hundreds of shots"... :)

Your logic is way out there. So because, witnessing a battle that had been going on for Force-knows-how-long, you see a dozen shots taking out a ship, you conclude that said ship's shields, at full strength, would be downed by a dozen or so shots?

Explain to me how the Battle of Endor lasted as long as it did, and why sides were not immediately destroyed in the opening seconds of the battle.

What?
Saying I don't like to debate with you is wrong?
Hey, I don't mind debating people who come up with evidence, calculations, non-edited screen shots or videos, but you're not that kind of a person...

No, P, you aren't the master debater that you think you are. When your opponent asks for evidence of ICS-contradicting yields, your response should not be:

AotC contradict ICS yields as has been shown here many times, TESB's self-exploding asteroids contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields, and RotS contradicts ICS and high-end EU yields...

Which is to restate your original claim while adding jack all.