Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#1 Edited by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

The Enterprise, led by Captain Kirk, has stumbled across a belligerent Imperial patrol. Two Imperial II Star Destroyers with a full complement of TIE-series starfighters. Will the Enterprise survive this deadly encounter, or will Imperial turbolasers spell the end of the Enterprise's ongoing mission? Star Wars team is using Legends specifications.

Bonus Round: Kirk decides to avoid conflict and disengage to prevent an international incident. Can he escape?

Avatar image for fetts
#3 Posted by Fetts (6229 posts) - - Show Bio

I read once on a thoroughly researched, extremely detailed and technical blog post that the force of blaster bolts from turrets on Star Wars crafts are extremely more powerful in comparison to Star Trek crafts. According to the calculations, Slave I could destroy the NCC-1701-D (Captain Picard's ship, which is more technologically advanced than Kirk's ship by centuries).

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#4 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio

@fetts: Do you have a link to it? Also aren't the shields on Star Trek ships supposed to be one of their strong points? That was my impression at least but I've never actually calced them out.

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#5 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio

bump

Avatar image for betatesthighlander1
#6 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7785 posts) - - Show Bio

Enterprise has all that space-bending technobabble, IDK how anything from SW can counter that

Avatar image for rl4
#7 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

The Enterprise.

Stardestroyer.net is just run by a bunch of fanboys who use non-canon technical manuals to claim things the actual movies clearly dispute.

Avatar image for paytience
#8 Edited by Paytience (4436 posts) - - Show Bio

@fetts: Thise have been debunked over and over again. Discovery/tos st era craft, which this is, can destroy planets and a single torpedo volley slagged a continent. Sw has nothing on trek, even if we allow the made up bullshit that stemmed from the ICS bullshit.

If Disney canon killed any dispute on the SW side, ST: Discovery is shit stomping them on the trek side.

When sw has the ability to teleport ships we can talk...maybe...but even then, ST sublight is .5 to .8 c vs Star destroyers which max out at low mach.

Trek ships have weapon ranges in the 10s of thousand kilometers. The klingons were within wepon range of earth from beyond SATURN.

This literslly never even turns in a fight, no matter how much wanking sd.net still throws out.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bb7f2e29af78
#9 Posted by deactivated-5bb7f2e29af78 (1835 posts) - - Show Bio

one ISD can solo in this situation.

Avatar image for rl4
#10 Edited by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

@paytience:

Ahh you’ve had the pleasure of looking over sd.net too? It’s frustrating* to read.

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#11 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for wut
#12 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@fullmetalemprah: Depends on which side you want to wank on that day. Generally, classic ST gets wrecked by classic SW. The best ST has is the discovery that people are now attempting to use to scale to classic ST [Because it happens before that time! So TECH COULD ONLY GET BETTER! Which is dumb. Scaling is dumb. We all know this, but it is only ever okay when the side you like is doing this, in fact, I called Paytience out for this nonsense awhile ago.].

So, depends on what you wanna cherry pick.

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#13 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Yeah fair enough, although I completely understand why you'd would wanna stay away from this one lol, ST vs SW never ends well.xD

Avatar image for paytience
#14 Edited by Paytience (4436 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: lol...all you did was post things that have been debunked numerous times elsewhere. Post all the "bdz" quotes you want, none of those operations have demonstrated anything near the numbers claimed. Evidence by the fact that several of them, in fact ALL of them still had people liveing on the surface afterward. Which is something you chose to completely ignore when pointed. I'm not going to get into another nondebate about numbers that you have absolutely no real evidence for. That ship in the picture has literally appeared in discovery. Deal with it.

Nothing...absolutely nothing that a sd has is going to overcome the absolutely stupid repugnantly idiotic advantagest that trek has in weapons ranges, sublight speeds, combat speeds, projectile weapons, targeting, sensors, and special tech.

That is not That is not wank, that is outright fact stated and shown at the highest tiers of canon. You've got nothing but fancalcd baloon numbers using made up metrics that are lierally contradicted in canon and certainly never shown.

Show me a single shot above multikiloton that wasn't powered by kyber crystals...ie the force...and then we can talk. Until then, you got star destroyer with a CANON sublight speed of 1250 kph and nothing to contradict shown, and a ftl system that is basically ride on rails. They would have to spend hours to DAYS in the weapons envelope of a trek ship before they even got close enough to know what the hell just took out every lol...turret they had.

This is a stomp...a stupid collosal epic stomp.

Avatar image for paytience
#15 Posted by Paytience (4436 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4: Bruh...I literally when that pile was being laid. blech.

Avatar image for wut
#16 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@paytience: lol...all you did was post things that have been debunked numerous times elsewhere. Post all the "bdz" quotes you want, none of those operations have demonstrated anything near the numbers claimed. Evidence by the fact that several of them, in fact ALL of them still had people liveing on the surface afterward. Which is something you chose to completely ignore when pointed. I'm not going to get into another nondebate about numbers that you have absolutely no real evidence for. That ship in the picture has literally appeared in discovery. Deal with it.

I doubt that very much. Because the main thing we discovered was you trying to use Discovery to scale and the stupidity in that given the ST series had never, ever, shown the level of power that Discovery showed and to attempt to use feats from Discovery and apply it to the older shows makes about as much sense as using ICS for The Clone Wars. The second was you demanding BDZ quotes, which I supplied.

Deal with it.

Nothing...absolutely nothing that a sd has is going to overcome the absolutely stupid repugnantly idiotic advantagest that trek has in weapons ranges, sublight speeds, combat speeds, projectile weapons, targeting, sensors, and special tech.

Oh? Is this the real USS Enterprise? Or your hilarious wanking scale that flies in the face of everything the USS Enterprise has shown to be capable of? You know.. its.. its almost like... every time you talk about the nonsense of ICS and other Star Wars outliers, you should reflect on this nonsense you love throwing about [seriously, if you got any harder thinking about Discovery, I'd worry about your pants].

That is not That is not wank, that is outright fact stated and shown at the highest tiers of canon. You've got nothing but fancalcd baloon numbers using made up metrics that are lierally contradicted in canon and certainly never shown.

What was that? I never made any mention of what Star Wars feats I was using in this thread. Hell, I never even said the ISD II wins this, in fact, I said it all depends on what feats you want to cherry pick.

Such as someone using ICS and scaling which contradicts other shown feats.

Or someone using Discovery to attempt to scale it despite the fact that said scale goes against everything ever displayed in the subject's actual feats. The cherry on top is when this super awesome person has the audacity to mock other people for scaling and applying feats to something that never showed that ability [or, at least, not consistently] yet is more then happy to do it themselves.

Show me a single shot above multikiloton that wasn't powered by kyber crystals...ie the force...and then we can talk. Until then, you got star destroyer with a CANON sublight speed of 1250 kph and nothing to contradict shown, and a ftl system that is basically ride on rails. They would have to spend hours to DAYS in the weapons envelope of a trek ship before they even got close enough to know what the hell just took out every lol...turret they had.

Oh? Canon, strange, because I see Legends in the OP. Oh, are we now going to discuss the fact you don't like Legends because it contradicts? While prancing around with Discovery and ignoring how it utterly contradicts with everything we see in the Enterprise? Wait... you already do that.

And we've done this before. I posted those quotes.

Avatar image for wut
#17 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@fullmetalemprah: Yep, its always nonsense. Whenever you enter the debate, you always have people cherry picking feats, making ludicrous scales and calcs that suit their argument.

Also thanks for dragging me into this! Now I have to listen to more Discovery Scale nonsense. If I stick around long enough, I'll probably get to see Star Wars people throwing down ICS turbolasers and how Vader's ship tanked being rammed from a ship dropping out of hyperspace [FTLLLL!!!.. No.. No its.. Not even going to..] and so that can be SCALED!

FML
FML

Avatar image for spinach
#18 Posted by Spinach (259 posts) - - Show Bio

Here we go again

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#19 Posted by decaf_wizard (16657 posts) - - Show Bio

Here we go again with butthurt star trek fans cherry picking every last thing they can

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#20 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Yeah my bad but wait a minute, people actually use ICS calcs? That's, uhh, interesting to say the least. Isn't that where that crazy calc that put blaster pistols at the level of 40k/Covenant plasma weapons came from?

Also I'm pretty sure Legends ISD's, and Canon ones for that matter, move faster than 1250 kph in sublight travel. That would be literally below a snail's pace in space, yet they seem to travel just fine.

Avatar image for wut
#21 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@fullmetalemprah: People use whatever makes the side they are debating for look best.

Avatar image for killerwasp
#22 Edited by Killerwasp (17209 posts) - - Show Bio

One isd solos..... unless an idiot is in charge...

Avatar image for wut
#24 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@paytience Shows me you tagged me, but I don't see your post anywhere. Don't know if you deleted it or if CV is being CV, however, I saw enough in the notification page to retort:

1. Prove it. Prove the Enterprise can planet wipe. Prove the Enterprise engages beyond visual range, especially, the bit about 'million km engagements'. The FTL firing was in warp travel at another target in warp travel, so, prove that it was ever done to something outside of warp travel. Again, prove the enterprise, the ship in question, is the one that can do this.

2. Your debate from previous, if my memory serves me correctly although I don't remember much outside of your silly Discovery scaling, was you saying DBZ only happens in ICS and that it doesn't happen elsewhere. I posted the examples in other media, you then went and moved the goalpost to, 'Well... those aren't THAT IMPRESSIVE!' which didn't matter because that was not the question, the question was 'do they do it outside of a singular source material'.

3. See, I don't have to prove Star Wars ships are full spectrum, you have to prove Enterprise Star Trek teleporters can get through energy shielding. You are making the positive claim that Star Trek teleporters can get through Star Wars shields. Its on YOU to prove it. You don't get to say, 'Well, they can do X. Prove they can't.'

I shouldn't have to tell you how to debate.

However, if you did delete the post then disregard this post.

Avatar image for wolfrazer
#25 Posted by Wolfrazer (15929 posts) - - Show Bio

@fullmetalemprah: An ISD's top travel speed is 60 MGLT....whatever that means in speed, with 2,300 G of max acceleration.

But anyway why are people acting like the ICS are the end all be all thing here? There's plenty of feats showcasing the capabilities of an ISD, the ICS aren't needed to determine firepower.

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#26 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (3475 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolfrazer: 1MGLT=360kph from what I remember(it was converted based on the amount of time it took to pass a stationary MC80a, so I've no idea if that's completely right), so that would put its top speed at 21,600 kph. That speed still sounds off, because if that were the case it wouldn't even be fast enough to maintain low orbit around Earth(around 28,000 kph). Still a lot better than 1,250 though.

Also I'm not acting like that, I'm just saying the ICS has rather dubious numbers is all. I prefer feats more than numbers though, because based on things like the amount of damage caused, the type of damage, and similar things we can get a better of idea than just simple numbers from scaling.
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/enterprise-ncc-1701-vs-two-imperial-ii-star-destro-1949227/
comicvine.gamespot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-04
199998
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:L23LBSIG2VPMA3AWSRIK5X5YHSNNSXCQ
<urn:uuid:d35a1d7f-92b8-4bee-933e-40c2b2293961>
2019-01-24T08:48:14Z
64.30.230.4
text/html
sha1:OEM7CL4UM3NLLJ32U2N7ZZYHFOFINTC3
<urn:uuid:3752cb2b-d2b7-4e06-a4b0-a6667ec91e0a>
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/enterprise-ncc-1701-vs-two-imperial-ii-star-destro-1949227/
response
<urn:uuid:f734abb4-439e-4621-94cf-f7d89dd3c538>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-136-233-116.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/