Starfleet Jedi

Like the topic says, this thread is all about the GAR and the CIS versus the Alpha Quadrant. For some reason the two unite to take on the Milky Way. A giant 10 lightyear diameter wormhole links both sides together, and it's smack dab between the Klingons, Humans and Romulans. Why 10 lightyears? Because this prevents mining and "spawn-killing". However, there is a major twist. When it comes to spaceship firepower and defenses, both sides are equal, ton for ton. This basically means that a 100 ton Federation vessel and 100 ton GAR vessel will have equally powerful weapons and shields.

The reason for creating this thread is two-fold. First off, most debates usually bog down in "side X has grater firepower, ergo they win." I hate this. Because there are so many other things to discuss, like how a ship is designed, how the weapons work, etc. And I want this thread to focus on all that stuff. The second reason is because I'm in the middle of a fanfic that basically has the OP as a starting point. And I want to use this as a gauge on how things should go, were there no plot elements involved.

Basically, I'm going to steal your ideas. Shamelessly. :P

l33telboi wrote:Like the topic says, this thread is all about the GAR and the CIS versus the Alpha Quadrant. For some reason the two unite to take on the Milky Way. A giant 10 lightyear diameter wormhole links both sides together, and it's smack dab between the Klingons, Humans and Romulans. Why 10 lightyears? Because this prevents mining and "spawn-killing". However, there is a major twist. When it comes to spaceship firepower and defenses, both sides are equal, ton for ton. This basically means that a 100 ton Federation vessel and 100 ton GAR vessel will have equally powerful weapons and shields.

The reason for creating this thread is two-fold. First off, most debates usually bog down in "side X has grater firepower, ergo they win." I hate this. Because there are so many other things to discuss, like how a ship is designed, how the weapons work, etc. And I want this thread to focus on all that stuff. The second reason is because I'm in the middle of a fanfic that basically has the OP as a starting point. And I want to use this as a gauge on how things should go, were there no plot elements involved.

Basically, I'm going to steal your ideas. Shamelessly. :P

Two questions. One, does the firepower parity extend to fire control and range?

Two, seeing as "ton-for-ton" firepower/durability does not scale perfectly within each ship size, what's our benchmark? Cubic meter for cubic meter, there is a big difference between the Sovereign, Galaxy, Intrepid and Defiant. There's an even bigger difference between a Super Star Destroyer, an Imperial Star Destroyer, and an X-Wing.

I suppose we could go and say "Well, let's say shuttles are like fighters, the Excelsior class is like a 450m cruiser, and the Nebula matches a 600m cruiser."

The first and most obvious thing to me is that while 10 LY is too wide to mine, it's not too wide to patrol and monitor for ST ships. (Point one.)

Jedi Master Spock wrote:Two questions. One, does the firepower parity extend to fire control and range?

No, only the raw power that can be channeled to weapons are the same.

I suppose we could go and say "Well, let's say shuttles are like fighters, the Excelsior class is like a 450m cruiser, and the Nebula matches a 600m cruiser."

Sounds about right.

The first and most obvious thing to me is that while 10 LY is too wide to mine, it's not too wide to patrol and monitor for ST ships. (Point one.)

Okay then. Say the entire sphere is filled with technobabble particles that disrupt all types of sensors and limits both visual and sensor range to about 100km.

Question?

If a phaser array is made up of different emitters that channel their energy to one point, rather than all of them shooting off at once, would that mean the phaser emitters each match an ISD gun, or is it the entire array?

And where do torpedoes come in? Are they stronger than the guns because the phasers equal the guns? Or are they the same? Or are the phasers slightly weaker than they should be in order to compensate for the torpedoes?

Mith wrote:If a phaser array is made up of different emitters that channel their energy to one point, rather than all of them shooting off at once, would that mean the phaser emitters each match an ISD gun, or is it the entire array?

Two ships of equal strength could provide, say, 10 terawatts to weapons. Which means that if they fire a single phaser, it'd be a 10 terawatt phaser, and if they fire 10 turbolasers bolts in one second, then each bolt would be 1 terajoule.

And where do torpedoes come in? Are they stronger than the guns because the phasers equal the guns? Or are they the same? Or are the phasers slightly weaker than they should be in order to compensate for the torpedoes?

Same size/tonnage deal as with ships. A photon torpedoe and a proton torpedoe that are of equal size and tonnage will do the same damage. Generally these are considered stronger then the energy weapons.

Well, some things to consider, at least from a political standpoint. First off, I would think that Palpatine (aka Darth Sidious) has manipulated the situation so that the CIS and GAR will put aside their differences, at least temporarily to fight the Alpha Quadrant powers. I also presume that Palpatine will also contrive some sort of an excuse for going to war against the Federation, even if the initial first contact is very peaceful one.

For the Alpha Quadrant side of things, you will also have to explain away why the other, somewhat lesser powers, such as the Breen, Cardassians, Tholians, and so on will not join up with one side or the other in this conflict as was the case with the Dominon invasion and subsequent war.

Some other things of note. Given that the Great Weapon, aka the Death Star is nowhere near complete, probably will not be for a number of years at best, that the program will be abandoned in favor of producing greater ship numbers. As per the Construction of ships in both verses thread. Given that the Dominion and Cardassians were able to field some 30,000 ships during three years, and the AQ Alliance were able to keep nearly apace with that, even when the Breen entered the picture, we have to assume that at minimum there will be some very large fleets fielded by both sides. Numbering in the tens of thousands each on both sides.

Ground combat is a bit more problematic since we don't have all that much to go on for Trek. We have just only been given limited references and glimpses of ground fighting and equipment used, which puts the AQ at a potentially serious disadvantage in any planetside fighting. we cannot, for example, describe how Trek ground armor units would fare against their GAR and CIS counterparts since though we have mention of Klingon and Cardassian armored vehicles, we have never been shown what they can do, much less what they actually look like. We do have some direct experiance with Klingon and Dominion artillery as well as the little photon grenade mortar used by the Federation. Those weapons certainly could be used to good effect in disrupting and killing Clone trooper and battledroid formations. It may not be so hot at stopping the large AT-AE, nor the large Juggernaut series of wheeled mechanized heavy assault vehicles.

All-in-all, this would shape up into a very nasty war. The CIS-GAR alliance would have signficant industrial capacity, planets and population going for it, as well as some technologies the AQ does not possess. The CIS-GAR also would have Jedi working for them (and secretly at least one Sith Lord!) The AQ powers, on the other hand, would also have quite a few technologies, such as transporters and replicators, both small and the large oft-mentioned industrial kind to help even the the gap in production.
-Mike

Numbers will play a lot in the amount of ships which both sides can send.
If shields are also adjusted proportionally based on logic and what ships should take from their own fire, with firepower balanced, greater manoeuverability and one of the best missile design will give Trek an edge.

Once hyperlanes are mapped, SW may be able to strike soon, faster and dictate certain rules of engagement, but I doubt any SW force will have enough time to properly probe a whole major tactical lane leading into the ennemy's territory before losses get too high.

That's a first impression now, there could be factors I missed giving SW the better side of the coin.

Well, SW hyperspace lanes are something have to be constantly maintained. If the AQ alliance is able to disrupt those recon and maintance efforts, it could severely hinder the CIS-GAR alliance's headway into the Milky Way galaxy. Conversely, some thing very similar holds true for warp drive, and it is to the CIS-GAR's advantage to keep the AQ powers from mapping their territory.

The big advantage that ST warp drive has it is that it can be kept in constant use ala Voyager's journey back to the AQ. Slow, but steady. With hyperdrive, it's either very short jumps, or nothing it at all.
-Mike

l33telboi wrote:Like the topic says, this thread is all about the GAR and the CIS versus the Alpha Quadrant. For some reason the two unite to take on the Milky Way. A giant 10 lightyear diameter wormhole links both sides together, and it's smack dab between the Klingons, Humans and Romulans. Why 10 lightyears? Because this prevents mining and "spawn-killing". However, there is a major twist. When it comes to spaceship firepower and defenses, both sides are equal, ton for ton. This basically means that a 100 ton Federation vessel and 100 ton GAR vessel will have equally powerful weapons and shields.

Since SW vessels are much larger on average than their Trek counterparts, this means that not only does Wars still win, but there's absolutely no wiggle room around it in this scenario.

If you wanted it to be truly even, you could say something like "Let's assume a GCS and ISD have equal firepower, and scale it from there". But you were too incomptent to do even that. JMSpock's proposed system works much better for that purpose, and I have no real objection to using it, if that's the intention.

The reason for creating this thread is two-fold. First off, most debates usually bog down in "side X has grater firepower, ergo they win." I hate this. Because there are so many other things to discuss, like how a ship is designed, how the weapons work, etc. And I want this thread to focus on all that stuff.

If you actually wanted to focus on that stuff, you could have put "SW vs. ST techinical discussion: No firepower." You could have made it a comparitive design discussion between the two settings, with discussions of firepower forbidden by OP. But no, you wanted a vs., albeit one that you could rig in your favor. And you failed at even that.

Concession accepted, l33telboi.

The second reason is because I'm in the middle of a fanfic that basically has the OP as a starting point. And I want to use this as a gauge on how things should go, were there no plot elements involved.

Basically, I'm going to steal your ideas. Shamelessly. :P

SW wins through superior production capacity. The RoTS ICS states that millions of capital ships were tied down in the Outer Rim sieges. Millions vs. 30,000 is not a very even match, especialy since your own OP has stipulated that the ships are individually equal.

l33telboi wrote:

Mith wrote:If a phaser array is made up of different emitters that channel their energy to one point, rather than all of them shooting off at once, would that mean the phaser emitters each match an ISD gun, or is it the entire array?

Two ships of equal strength could provide, say, 10 terawatts to weapons. Which means that if they fire a single phaser, it'd be a 10 terawatt phaser, and if they fire 10 turbolasers bolts in one second, then each bolt would be 1 terajoule.

OK, so a standard GCS phaser strike is going to come pretty close to matching a main battery ISD gun on full power. The ISD is shooting more attacks at that strength (close to ten times as many) but will have problems with accuracy.

Opecoiler wrote: Since SW vessels are much larger on average than their Trek counterparts, this means that not only does Wars still win, but there's absolutely no wiggle room around it in this scenario.

Not really. Standard ST ships can apply close to 100% of maximum firepower in any direction with superior accuracy and range. They're backing this up with superior tactical mobility.

It's a great help to the Star Wars side, since they do otherwise have inferiority in firepower per ton; however, their disadvantages in range, accuracy, flexibility, and mobility are still present in force.

Now, will they lose all their battles ship to ship? Not necessarily. They will do especially well in battles where the Federation officers do not take advantage of their superior mobility and range. Will they do well given those disadvantages? Not particularly likely, especially in the long run.

l33telboi wrote:

Mith wrote:And where do torpedoes come in? Are they stronger than the guns because the phasers equal the guns? Or are they the same? Or are the phasers slightly weaker than they should be in order to compensate for the torpedoes?

Same size/tonnage deal as with ships. A photon torpedoe and a proton torpedoe that are of equal size and tonnage will do the same damage. Generally these are considered stronger then the energy weapons.

[/quote]
The actual photon torpedo (not glow) is about eighty five times the size of an actual [fighter-grade] proton torpedo (~ 30 cm cone vs ~2.1m coffin). You might remember that in X-Wing: The Bacta War less than that collapsed the bow shields of the Lusyanka.

Even if we assume that one photon torpedo is roughly equal to one capital grade proton torpedo from the EU descriptors - i.e., only about equal to four - and using The Hutt Gambit and X-Wing: Bacta War that means a spread of twenty photon torpedoes would be enough to collapse the front shields of a super star destroyer. A spread of ten should suffice for an ISD, and only a half dozen striking at the same time would suffice for a Victory or smaller capital ship.

The problem with this is that torpedoes are relatively rare, expensive, and powerful in Star Wars, while they are very common in Star Trek...

Opecoiler wrote:But you were too incomptent to do even that. JMSpock's proposed system works much better for that purpose, and I have no real objection to using it, if that's the intention.

But no, you wanted a vs., albeit one that you could rig in your favor. And you failed at even that.

Concession accepted, l33telboi.

I'm sensing a bit of hostility there. Almost as if you were bitter over some previous versus debate... But that couldn't be, right?

I really did a number on you, didn't I? ;)

JMS wrote:Even if we assume that one photon torpedo is roughly equal to one capital grade proton torpedo from the EU descriptors - i.e., only about equal to four - and using The Hutt Gambit and X-Wing: Bacta War that means a spread of twenty photon torpedoes would be enough to collapse the front shields of a super star destroyer. A spread of ten should suffice for an ISD, and only a half dozen striking at the same time would suffice for a Victory or smaller capital ship.

No, not really. A SSD will have shields a lot more powerful then a GCS given its vastly larger size. I don't know exactly how many torps a GCS can take, but I'd wager it's a lot more then one. Ergo an SSD would require that number multiplied by the volume difference.

When I said equal firepower/defense I meant equal firepower/defense. This does not include a spread of 20 torps taking down a craft that's countless times larger then a GCS. Because if this were true, then a microtorp would blow a GCS out of the water double-quick.

l33telboi wrote:No, not really. A SSD will have shields a lot more powerful then a GCS given its vastly larger size. I don't know exactly how many torps a GCS can take, but I'd wager it's a lot more then one. Ergo an SSD would require that number multiplied by the volume difference.

Estimates vary wildly. "Changeling" suggests 450 TOS torps' worth of energy for CCS shields, which brings us back to an extra problem of raw energy not being equal to effect.

Frankly, given that exceptionally large vessels don't seem to be especially tough in either franchise, I wouldn't multiply by the ratio between GCS and SSD volume. A SSD is not 200+x as tough and mean as an ISD, and fighters are pound-for-pound exceptionally nasty.

When I said equal firepower/defense I meant equal firepower/defense. This does not include a spread of 20 torps taking down a craft that's countless times larger then a GCS. Because if this were true, then a microtorp would blow a GCS out of the water double-quick.

Which would be the flip side of that problem. Torpedoes, in the SW EU, are proportionately that much more powerful than comparable beam weapons, with tiny fighter-grade torpedoes looking like heavy capital weapons, while for ST capital ships, the heavy capital torpedoes look pretty close to the heavy beam weapons.

The devil's in the details, I say. There's also the Defiant problem, where some particular ships are supposed to be particularly fantastic for their weight class.

But leaving aside those details, let me remind everyone what this would mean in firepower/toughness equivalences.

Nebulas and Galaxies (and presumably Sovereigns) will match 600m heavy cruisers (e.g., Dreadnoughts). Excelsiors will roughly measure up to Strike Cruisers. Constellations and Intrepids go to Carrack light cruisers. Mirandas and other CCS-like ships will match Nebulon-B frigates. The Oberth will be somewhere around a corvette.

Cruisers are not negligible capital ships even in SW, and these have a degree of superiority of mobility usually reserved for fighters, and crazy accuracy/range.

l33telboi wrote:
I'm sensing a bit of hostility there. Almost as if you were bitter over some previous versus debate... But that couldn't be, right?

I really did a number on you, didn't I? ;)

Oh please. I freely admit that you kicked my ass in the Starcraft debates we had. And I'm not bitter about you winning any debates. I'm bitter over the fact that you're a snide, hypocritcal asshole.

In this very post you make a snide, inflammatory remark. You make these snide, inflammatory remarks in just about every thread you're in. And you have claimed that you don't like flaming. And who can forget your hit-run trolling on SDN?

In fact, the reason why I reacted so badly against Starcraft in the first place had nothing to do with the setting itself and everything to do with you. I just found myself so repulsed by your snide, arrogant, inflammatory attitude that I snapped out against you-and your side was Starcraft. Naturally you flattened me, as it was someone with actual knowledge of the source material vs. an immature kiddy who was doing it because he disliked the attitude of someone on the opposing side, not because he had any interest in either side himself.

Of course, I admit that I was immature and stupid when I did those Starcraft debates. I've grown up, and now avoid them. I've matured. It seems you haven't, as you're still making those snide, inflammatory remarks that made me lash out against you all that time ago.

Opecoiler wrote:But you were too incomptent to do even that. JMSpock's proposed system works much better for that purpose, and I have no real objection to using it, if that's the intention.

But no, you wanted a vs., albeit one that you could rig in your favor. And you failed at even that.

l33telboi wrote: I'm sensing a bit of hostility there. Almost as if you were bitter over some previous versus debate... But that couldn't be, right?

l33telboi, I hereby award you with the Counselor Troi Award for that one. ;-)

l33telboi wrote: No, not really. A SSD will have shields a lot more powerful then a GCS given its vastly larger size. I don't know exactly how many torps a GCS can take, but I'd wager it's a lot more then one. Ergo an SSD would require that number multiplied by the volume difference.

When I said equal firepower/defense I meant equal firepower/defense. This does not include a spread of 20 torps taking down a craft that's countless times larger then a GCS. Because if this were true, then a microtorp would blow a GCS out of the water double-quick.

That brings up other issues, like rating the ISD-sized Dominion battleship seen in "The Valiant", which was stated to be three times more powerful than a Galaxy class starship. There is also the the variant of the battleship which appears to be around 5 km long seen in orbit of Cardassia in "What You Leave Behind" to consider as well.
-Mike

Opecoiler wrote:I'm bitter over the fact that you're a snide, hypocritcal asshole.

Nah, doesn't quite add up. If you'd dislike me simply because I'm a hypocritical asshole then you'd be posting stuff like this nonstop all over the internet. There's got to be some reason you feel the need to menstruate all over my posts specifically.

In this very post you make a snide, inflammatory remark.

Really? I don't think I did so before you showed up.

You make these snide, inflammatory remarks in just about every thread you're in.

Something tells me you just see snide, inflammatory remarks wherever you want to see them. Facts be damned. But hey, your delusions are your own problem. Don’t involve me in your little fantasy world.

And you have claimed that you don't like flaming.

I don't dislike flaming, I just don't understand what the point is. I mean apart from compensating from a lacking penis size and using flames to try to win a debate the dishonest way, what's the point? Do you get an erection every time you do the dastardly thing and write down a naughty word on the computer? Do you climax when you complete the sentence?

I'm quite capable of flaming, indeed I do it on boards where it's considered the proper way to conduct yourself if you’re an “adult scientist” (uh-oh, snide remark alert!), which brings us to:

And who can forget your hit-run trolling on SDN?

Trolling? I simply pointed out that people were claiming I've said stuff I haven't and challenged them to quote me where I've said what they claimed I've said. They failed to do so (naturally), but because they couldn't let me get away with such madness they decided throw some impotent nerd rage around.

And the flaming? I did it because it's expected on the board. I might not appreciate it, but other people seem to.

In fact, the reason why I reacted so badly against Starcraft in the first place had nothing to do with the setting itself and everything to do with you.

Yes, I know. I still have that quote around from when you came into the IRC and said that you're just arguing against me because you don't like me. Funny as hell. Also made me (and probably everybody else) realize that you're not someone to take all too seriously in any debate.

I just found myself so repulsed by your snide, arrogant, inflammatory attitude that I snapped out against you-and your side was Starcraft.

Seems more like you're totally gay for me but can't stand the thought of me not sharing in your homoerotic fantasies.

Of course, I admit that I was immature and stupid when I did those Starcraft debates. I've grown up, and now avoid them. I've matured.

If anything, these posts point to the quite obvious fact that you've sunk even further. You’ve gone from brainless poster to ‘vindictive little person stalking other people on various boards’. Don’t worry, I feel honored. Reading you PMS induced ramblings is delightful on a Friday like this.

I mean come on, I come home from work, I’ve got a free weekend in front of me, I brew myself a most godly cup of coffee, and when I log on to the internet I find this. Comedy gold. Could it be any better?

It seems you haven't, as you're still making those snide, inflammatory remarks that made me lash out against you all that time ago.

You know what your problem here is? You're stupid. It has nothing to do with maturity or having grown up. Your problem is that you let your feelings take over and then convert your insanity into words and click post. Take a look at the OP, where is this 'inflammatory remark', eh? There is nothing there. And every single normal person in this world can see this. But you're too stupid to understand that, and thus, you humiliate yourself by claiming there is. Oh, yes, I already know what you’re about to say, you’re going to quote something from the OP and then say “this is the inflammatory remark!”. But see, you’re not really convincing anyone else. And if you’ve actually convinced yourself of this, then I feel sorry for you. Because you’re little more then a random animal with no apparent control over yourself and a quite glaring inability to think rationally when you’re emotionally invested in something.