I've got room in my sci-fi'ness to like both.
Star Wars or Star Trek or Both
This topic is locked from further discussion.
i gotta say star wars, much more thrilling, plus am not into the whole constant episodes.. just get it over and done with in the film i can go away chat about it then wait and wait and wait for the next installment lol..
i have honestly never got into the whole star strek thing, but love star wars, i wonder between the 2 are they like marmite? hmmmmmmmm
NEo
------------------------------------------------------------
gaming means more with money on it
www.neo-fight.com
[QUOTE="pianist"]Oh please.... the characters in Star Wars are just as awful. From the stereotypical 'bad dude with a heart of gold' in Han Solo, to the wimpy hero, and his 'tough but feminine' companion, to the wise, all-knowing father figure in Obi Wan... CaptHawkeye
They were archetypes. That's what made them so wonderful. They weren't any of Star Trek's egotistical "holier than thou" crap.I can't believe you think Sisko's "Oh man I just blew up whole bunch of Jem Hadar, zomg war is terrible" monolouges are entertaining.
I missed the part where I said I liked DS9... and if you think that 'archetypal cliches' that could have popped from a futuristic Disney flick are wonderful, then far be it from me to try to change your mind. Suffice it to say I disagree.
if you're going to call characters from Star Trek walking cliches, you'd better admit that Star Wars is just as bad.
Why? Because the story actually flows from them?
You know the real world isn't comprised of characters who are specifically designed to propel a predictable story forward. You talk about suspension of disbelief, and yet this is entirely impossible to achieve when the story does not at any point interest you, because you can predict exactly what will happen at every moment. There is, of course, a certain element of predictability in any drama. The good guys will win, obviously. But in Star Wars, the manner by which the good guys win is so mind-numbingly predictable that you'd think the script was written by a clever 14 year old. At not one point did I find myself surprised by a twist in the plot, and frankly, I left not caring one iota about any of the characters that had passed off this cliched tale of good vs. evil.
And regardless of what you say, no amount of self-righteous monologue from Sisko, selfish ****yness from Janeway or blind adherence to the Prime Directive by Picard could possibly match the annoying factor of characters like C-3PO, Jabba, or the dimwitted, schreeching ewoks that populate the Star Wars universe.
I don't see how you could think that way. We only had to put up with C-3PO for a few minutes every now and then. We had to put up with Star Trek's lame ass characters for ENTIRE SERIES.
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated my intense dislike for the stereotypical nature of all the main characters of Star Wars. I don't like one-dimensional cliches that, taken together, MIGHT form a complex character.
Oh I'm sorry... people with longer attention spans don't need a constant stream of action sequences to be entertained when we watch TV.
Oh I see. :roll: You're one of those people who thinks watching "intellectual" TV somehow makes you better then everyone else. News flash Shakespeare, watching Star Trek does NOT make you a humanist/philospher/engineer/scientist.
And Star Wars does? Do bear in mind that my comment was in direct response to a person who claims that watching grass grow is more interesting than Star Trek. So I suppose you feel you're higher on the intellectual food chain because you prefer the 'realistic' Star Wars universe? And for what? Just because there's still war, and you cling to the deeply cynical belief that no matter how long humanoids remain in existence, they will still cling to antiquated ideals of conquest and imperialism?
But if idiotic concepts like 'The Force,' hyperdrive, turbolasers with laughably unbelievable power outputs, and duking it out with swords made of 'light' when you have ranged weapons at your disposal (because after all... what's a futuristic conflict without sword fights? :|) float your boat, all the power to you. Frankly, I really don't care what you prefer or watch.
If things like warships with civilians on them, (mind you, these ships can be destroyed by ****ing computer viruses, what idiot would design a ship like that?), hand guns designed like remote controls, lame zombie empires,subtle racism,braindead safety prodedures andhalf assed psuedoscience float yours.
Probably the same idiots that would design a massive, planet-destroying starbase that inexplicably fails to account for the ONLY enemy threat it would ever face... sabotage and a fighter assault. I fail to see how the appearance of the phaser affects its combat effectiveness. The 'lame zombie empire' would annhilate the lame Galactic Empire, which relies totally on laser weapons that don't even have adequate targeting systems (watching those morons trying to hit a fighter reminded me of flak guns in WWII), let alone the capacity to rotate frequencies. I have no idea where you derive subtle racism; the Death Star's security procedures are apparently even lamer than Star Trek's 'braindead safety procedures,' and if you don't think Star Wars is chalk full of the same pseudoscientific crap that you find in Star Trek, you're totally out to lunch.
Laughably unbelieveable power outputs? How do you bring yourself to watch Star Trek with that attitude? Star Trek has got ****ing GHOSTS and psychics for christ sake. So sorry, your little "lol force is teh fictional suck" mantra doesnt work. Do I need to point out other fun things in Trek like the Q, Organians, and Kevin Uxbridge? All capable of laughably fictional things as well, I don't see you complaining about them. Because, oh noes, their a part of the "intellectual" Star Trek right? They are EXEMPT from your criticism.
Star Trek does a better job of walking the line between believability and pure fiction, especially with respect to weaponry. The notion that future weapons will be powerful enough to vaporize meteors, yet lack the simple capacity to lock onto a small, fast moving target with ease is utterly absurd. Star Trek provides a suspension of disbelief that Star Wars never did... and I was a fan of Star Wars before I was a fan of Star Trek.
I find it surprising that you of all people is unaware that Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy. Have you ever heard of Suspension of Disbelief? How can you possibly be entertained by ANY fictional matieral if you don't use it?
Why yes, I have. Star Wars doesn't do it for me. All the discussion in the world isn't going to change that fact.
"Frankly, I don't really care what you prefer to watch."
Ah but you are perfectly willing to criticize it. Aren't you?
Yep... in response to blanket criticism. You seem to be spending an awful lot of your time trying to convince me that I should prefer Star Wars... do YOU really care what I prefer to watch? Does it have any bearing on your life whatsoever?
EDIT: And that tirade against lightsabers is funny. I encounter it all the time. Tell me, in your-oh-so-perfect Star Trek galaxy, why do the Klingons insist on rushing into every battle with knives and misbalanced swords?
It's their tradition. It's exactly the same as Japanese officers carrying swords in WWII. But in Star Trek, a Klingon who tries to rush a guy with a phaser will get himself mowed down, kind of like a Japanese officer charging a machine gun nest with his sword. In Star Wars, we're supposed to believe that these swordsmen are capable of parrying ranged fire at will using what amounts to 'magic powers.' Sorry... again, I find Star Trek to be a tad more believable than Star Wars, and no amount of feuding is going to change my opinion.
Did you miss the moments in the movies when they made it abundantly clear that the Jedi use their lightsabers to deflect blaster bolts?
Addressed above.
This is a totally useless debate... since in reality, it boils down to nothing more than two people who have very different preferences regarding two fictional universes. You can have the last word if you like... I'm finished here.
Starw Wars, obviously. Not that I hate STar Trek or something...
Oh, and by the way, pianist, your argument about SW target locking capability is completely broken - why would an anti-naval gun need to lock on tiny fighters? That's not what it's supposed to do.
Starw Wars, obviously. Not that I hate STar Trek or something...
Oh, and by the way, pianist, your argument about SW target locking capability is completely broken - why would an anti-naval gun need to lock on tiny fighters? That's not what it's supposed to do.
Zyamaman
Why would you design ANY modern warship without the capacity to defend against the NUMBER ONE threat to large naval vessels? See, today's warships have little things called SAMs. They can lock onto targets as small as an inbound missle and destroy them at long range. Are you trying to tell me that in the distant future, enormously important warships will not be outfitted with the equivalent of SAMs, but will instead rely on what amounts to WWII dog-fighting and blindly firing flak-style turrets to take out mobile opponents? Sorry... that's just insane. It's the product of a story that was stuck very much in the past when it was written.
Why would you design ANY modern warship without the capacity to defend against the NUMBER ONE threat to large naval vessels? See, today's warships have little things called SAMs. They can lock onto targets as small as an inbound missle and destroy them at long range. Are you trying to tell me that in the distant future, enormously important warships will not be outfitted with the equivalent of SAMs, but will instead rely on what amounts to WWII dog-fighting to take out mobile opponents?.pianist
See, modern naval vessels and SW vessels are two absolutely different things!
In SW, small starfighters on their own aren't even considered a real threat to capital vessels, let alone something as well armored as the Death Star! There was no need to arm the DS against fighters, they were not supposed to be capable of inflicting any serious damage, and the DS had TIE's on board to take care of the fighters if they become a nuisance.
Sorry... that's just insane. It's the product of a story that was stuck very much in the past when it was written
It makes perfect sense if you would at least have the courtesy to think about it for a second...
I missed the part where I said I liked DS9... and if you think that 'archetypal cliches' that could have popped from a futuristic Disney flick are wonderful, then far be it from me to try to change your mind. Suffice it to say I disagree.
Right, because Star Trek's "today's morale of the story" plot lines AREN'T childish.
You know the real world isn't comprised of characters who are specifically designed to propel a predictable story forward. You talk about suspension of disbelief,
I guess you missed the entirety of WW2. Eh?
and yet this is entirely impossible to achieve when the story does not at any point interest you, because you can predict exactly what will happen at every moment.
You were able to predict Vader was Luke's father? Well hell.
There is, of course, a certain element of predictability in any drama. The good guys will win, obviously. But in Star Wars, the manner by which the good guys win is so mind-numbingly predictable that you'd think the script was written by a clever 14 year old.
Yet that doesn't stop millions of people from practically killing eachother over tickets to see the movies. Now Star Trek 10? Where were its rolling crowds?
At not one point did I find myself surprised by a twist in the plot, and frankly, I left not caring one iota about any of the characters that had passed off this cliched tale of good vs. evil.
Cliche'd eh? Yeah, Star Trek is nothing like after all right? It's never up to Captain Kirk to defeat today "villain of the week". Like an episode of Dragon Ball Z.
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated my intense dislike for the stereotypical nature of all the main characters of Star Wars. I don't like one-dimensional cliches that, taken together, MIGHT form a complex character.
And guess what? I don't like contrived characters who consume screen time by spouting 20 minutes of technobable. Seems to me not many others do either.
And Star Wars does?
Nice strawman.
Do bear in mind that my comment was in direct response to a person who claims that watching grass grow is more interesting than Star Trek.
At least grass is consistent.
So I suppose you feel you're higher on the intellectual food chain because you prefer the 'realistic' Star Wars universe? And for what?
This is downright insulting.You are strawmanning me and nowtrying to flip your pseudo intellectual elite mantra aroundby quoting me out of context?
Just because there's still war, and you cling to the deeply cynical belief that no matter how long humanoids remain in existence, they will still cling to antiquated ideals of conquest and imperialism?
:lol: You honestly think they will change? Moralistic values do increase as time goes along, but the only way your going to end war is by turning everyone into the emasculated pansies that inhabit the Star Trek universe. But oh wait! Even there it doesn't work!
Probably the same idiots that would design a massive, planet-destroying starbase that inexplicably fails to account for the ONLY enemy threat it would ever face... sabotage and a fighter assault.
Yeah, it doesn't matter that the pilot who destroyed the Death Star was only the son of the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy against a man so incredibly arrogant that he thought it was perfectly ok tovaporize a core world.
I fail to see how the appearance of the phaser affects its combat effectiveness.
Oh ffs talk to anyone who's handled a gun before. No one wants to use a remote control with no sighting mechanism in combat. Ever.
The 'lame zombie empire' would annhilate the lame Galactic Empire, which relies totally on laser weapons that don't even have adequate targeting systems (watching those morons trying to hit a fighter reminded me of flak guns in WWII),
Nope,the Borg cannot adapt to all weapons. It's been shown numerous times in the series. They can't even adapt to the solor corona of a sun. Yet the Death Star's energy output is hundreds of times the power of the sun.A singleStar Destroyer could wtfpwn the collective.
let alone the capacity to rotate frequencies.
Frequencies only matter in Trek's lame weapons. Unless you think Picard had to "adjust" thefrequency of his Thompson. :lol:
I have no idea where you derive subtle racism;
Worf's child and so many other children are so "tragically torn between their klingon and humanhalves!" Hidden message? Don't have mixed race children.
The Baku are so perfect! Wholesome small town folksy people! That's why their are no African Americans amongst them, not to mention Chinese, Phillipino, etc.Yet the ranks of Starfleet had different races. Don't you find it just a little strange that the movie touts the Ba'ku as superior? They've only eliminated things like greed, war, racial impurity.
the Death Star's security procedures are apparently even lamer than Star Trek's 'braindead safety procedures,' and if you don't think Star Wars is chalk full of the same pseudoscientific crap that you find in Star Trek, you're totally out to lunch.
Yeah, it doesn't matter that the Death Star was staffed mostly by contractors at the time. I like how you also ignored the fact that the people who infiltrated the death star were...
A. A retired Jedi War Veteran.
B. A Wookie.
C. A combat experienced smuggler.
D. A farm boy... understandable complaints against him.
Star Trek does a better job of walking the line between believability and pure fiction, especially with respect to weaponry.
Sure it does. That's why Starfleet hasn'tissued M-16s en masse to recruits.Not to mentionhand grenades,body armor, anti tank weapons, etc.
The notion that future weapons will be powerful enough to vaporize meteors,
We've got bombs (See, Czar bomba) that can excavate miles worth of landmass today. It's not as impossible as you think.
yet lack the simple capacity to lock onto a small, fast moving target with ease is utterly absurd.
Name a moment in the movie your are talking about?
Star Trek provides a suspension of disbelief that Star Wars never did... and I was a fan of Star Wars before I was a fan of Star Trek.
You don't understand what Suspension of Disbelief even is? Do you?
Why yes, I have. Star Wars doesn't do it for me. All the discussion in the world isn't going to change that fact.
I'm so god damn tired of this. You come to a forum to discuss and talk about things. But you don't?
Yep... in response to blanket criticism. You seem to be spending an awful lot of your time trying to convince me that I should prefer Star Wars... do YOU really care what I prefer to watch? Does it have any bearing on your life whatsoever?
Nope, I argue for the sake of arguing. We're on internet forum FFS.
It's their tradition. It's exactly the same as Japanese officers carrying swords in WWII. But in Star Trek, a Klingon who tries to rush a guy with a phaser will get himself mowed down,
OH come on. How many times in Trek do we have to putup withhearing about the Klingon's "legendary" status as warriors? How do they manage to control such a vast empire when their men don't even walk around with rifles?
kind of like a Japanese officer charging a machine gun nest with his sword. In Star Wars, we're supposed to believe that these swordsmen are capable of parrying ranged fire at will using what amounts to 'magic powers.'
In Star Trek, we're supposed to believe the Klingons can control huge swaths of space with ****ing butter knives. Again, I fail to see how Trek is in any way better than Wars.At least the Jedi HAVE magic powers.
Sorry... again, I find Star Trek to be a tad more believable than Star Wars, and no amount of feuding is going to change my opinion.
Translation: LALALALA I can't hear you!
This is a totally useless debate...
To you anyway. [Zoidberg]I'm having a wonderful time![/Zoidberg]
since in reality, it boils down to nothing more than two people who have very different preferences regarding two fictional universes.
Of course. And if you bring it up in a conversation, you shouldn't be surprised when someonefeels like talking about it.
You can have the last word if you like... I'm finished here.
Done and done. BTW, you should come Stardestroyer.net, you would just love it.
[QUOTE="Zyamaman"]Starw Wars, obviously. Not that I hate STar Trek or something...
Oh, and by the way, pianist, your argument about SW target locking capability is completely broken - why would an anti-naval gun need to lock on tiny fighters? That's not what it's supposed to do.
pianist
Why would you design ANY modern warship without the capacity to defend against the NUMBER ONE threat to large naval vessels? See, today's warships have little things called SAMs. They can lock onto targets as small as an inbound missle and destroy them at long range. Are you trying to tell me that in the distant future, enormously important warships will not be outfitted with the equivalent of SAMs, but will instead rely on what amounts to WWII dog-fighting and blindly firing flak-style turrets to take out mobile opponents? Sorry... that's just insane. It's the product of a story that was stuck very much in the past when it was written.
Did you even watch the movie? I thought Episode 4 made it clear that guided weapons aren't overly effective in Star Wars because they have absurdly powerful jamming technology. For christ sake, the Death Star's jamming was powerful enought to distort space/time.
[QUOTE="pianist"]Why would you design ANY modern warship without the capacity to defend against the NUMBER ONE threat to large naval vessels? See, today's warships have little things called SAMs. They can lock onto targets as small as an inbound missle and destroy them at long range. Are you trying to tell me that in the distant future, enormously important warships will not be outfitted with the equivalent of SAMs, but will instead rely on what amounts to WWII dog-fighting to take out mobile opponents?.Zyamaman
See, modern naval vessels and SW vessels are two absolutely different things!
In SW, small starfighers on their own aren't even considered a real threat to capital vessels, let alone something as well armored as the Death Star! There was no need to arm the DS against fighers, they were not supposed to be capable of inflicting any serious damage, and the DS had TIE's on board to take care of the fighters if they become a nuisance.
Sorry... that's just insane. It's the product of a story that was stuck very much in the past when it was written
It makes perfect sense if you would at leas give it a moment of thought...
That attitude sounds as suspiciously short-sighted as the battleship buffs who felt that aircraft would never pose a serious threat to battleships in WWII. You know what they say about failing to learn from mistakes. They had centuries to get it right.
If you're going to take the time to build a ship as massive as the death star, you're going to plan for EVERY possibility. Shuttles don't pose much threat in the Star Trek universe either, but any capital ship has the weapons necessary to deal with them nonetheless. Clearly the Death Star was armed with laser turrets to protect against small, fast-moving targets... so why the heck not arm it with SAM-type guided missiles instead? For that matter, why are unguided turbolasers used AT ALL when guided missiles are so much more effective in destroying targets at long range?
It only makes perfect sense if you warp your view of reality to force it to make perfect sense. Just like aircraft don't have to be dangerous to properly equipped capital ships today, there was no reason that fighters should have posed any threat to the Death Star. Gross negligence in the weapons engineering allowed the Rebel attack to succeed. On modern day Earth, every one of those fighters would have been intercepted by homing missiles from either the Death Star itself or the Death Star's fighters long before they got within visual range.
[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="Zyamaman"]Starw Wars, obviously. Not that I hate STar Trek or something...
Oh, and by the way, pianist, your argument about SW target locking capability is completely broken - why would an anti-naval gun need to lock on tiny fighters? That's not what it's supposed to do.
CaptHawkeye
Why would you design ANY modern warship without the capacity to defend against the NUMBER ONE threat to large naval vessels? See, today's warships have little things called SAMs. They can lock onto targets as small as an inbound missle and destroy them at long range. Are you trying to tell me that in the distant future, enormously important warships will not be outfitted with the equivalent of SAMs, but will instead rely on what amounts to WWII dog-fighting and blindly firing flak-style turrets to take out mobile opponents? Sorry... that's just insane. It's the product of a story that was stuck very much in the past when it was written.
Did you even watch the movie? I thought Episode 4 made it clear that guided weapons aren't overly effective in Star Wars because they have absurdly powerful jamming technology. For christ sake, the Death Star's jamming was powerful enought to distort space/time.
Ever heard of Home on Jam, Hawkeye? Why the hell can't they do it then if they can do it now? The entire history of warfare is marked by new technologies, followed rapidly by technology to counter that technology. If powerful jammers were developed, there would be an answer to them in short order.
Done and done. BTW, you should come Stardestroyer.net, you would just love it.
CaptHawkeye
:lol:
I've been to Stardestroyer.net. To be honest, those people seem a little too wrapped up in the fantasy. I may be a fan of Star Trek... but I'm not out there trying to figure out exactly how many terrawatts of power the Enterprise consumes while in warp flight...
That attitude sounds as suspiciously short-sighted as the battleship buffs who felt that aircraft would never pose a serious threat to battleships in WWII.pianist
Space is nothing like water. You seem to be casually ignoring the fact that Star Destoyers fly to.
If you're going to take the time to build a ship as massive as the death star, you're going to plan for EVERY possibility.
They DID. The exhasut shaft was RAY SHIELDED and COVERED with anti aircraft weaponry.
Shuttles don't pose much threat in the Star Trek universe either, but any capital ship has the weapons necessary to deal with them nonetheless.
No, they don't. They shoot phasers at them. Woohoo, phasers are used for EVERYTHING.
Clearly the Death Star was armed with laser turrets to protect against small, fast-moving targets... so why the heck not arm it with SAM-type guided missiles instead?
Jamming in SW works both ways. Not like it matters anyway, since the only ships fast enough to dodge the fire are fighters anyway.
For that matter, why are unguided turbolasers used AT ALL when guided missiles are so much more effective in destroying targets at long range?
Because lasers can't be intercepted and shot down by other lasers? Nor can they be jammed? It's redundant anyway. Return of the Jedi clearly showed scenes with Star Destroyers firing on the rebel fleet from hundreds of kilometers away.
It only makes perfect sense if you warp your view of reality to force it to make perfect sense. Just like aircraft don't have to be dangerous to properly equipped capital ships today, there was no reason that fighters should have posed any threat to the Death Star.
Correct. That's why it was destroyed by a boy wonder in the end.Didn't you notice that only Luke and two other fighters came back alive from that raid?
Gross negligence in the weapons engineering allowed the Rebel attack to succeed.
Gross negligence on Tarkin's part allowed the raid to succed.
On modern day Earth, every one of those fighters would have been intercepted by homing missiles from either the Death Star itself or the Death Star's fighters long before they got within visual range.
Tarkin did not consider them even worth the time. He was going to blow away Alderaan ASAP. Deploying fighters and long range weapons would be totally superfluouse.
[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]Done and done. BTW, you should come Stardestroyer.net, you would just love it.
pianist
:lol:
I've been to Stardestroyer.net. To be honest, those people seem a little too wrapped up in the fantasy. I may be a fan of Star Trek... but I'm not out there trying to figure out exactly how many terrawatts of power the Enterprise consumes while in warp flight...
Hahah. Of course it's easy for you to take pot shots at them from a distance. You're nice and safe here on Gamespot!
"Too wrapped up in the fantasy?" You might want to tell that to the millions of americans who talk about fantasy football teams every day and memorize huge swaths of sports statistics, mang.
Yes Mike Wong figured out the power outputs of the weapons. He's only an engineer FFS. He must bea complete loser for taking the time to do that!
That attitude sounds as suspiciously short-sighted as the battleship buffs who felt that aircraft would never pose a serious threat to battleships in WWII. You know what they say about failing to learn from mistakes. They had centuries to get it right.pianits
How is this even relevant to our debate? WWII era fighers were capable of carrying anti-ship torpedoes, while SW fighers have absolutely no way of damaging a capital ship!
If you're going to take the time to build a ship as massive as the death star, you're going to plan for EVERY possibility.
Were they also supposed to take into account the possibillity that the rebels would lay their hands on the plans, figure out the only vulnurable spot of the DS have and use the Force to hit it?!
Shuttles don't pose much threat in the Star Trek universe either, but any capital ship has the weapons necessary to deal with them nonetheless.
Shuttles pose enough of a threat in ST to be taken into account!!
Clearly the Death Star was armed with laser turrets to protect against small, fast-moving targets
Those were specifically pointed out to be anti-naval guns, not point defense. They were not supposed to hit those fighters!
so why the heck not arm it with SAM-type guided missiles instead? For that matter, why are unguided turbolasers used AT ALL when guided missiles are so much more effective in destroying targets at long range?
Heavy jamming.
Gross negligence in the weapons engineering allowed the Rebel attack to succeed. On modern day Earth, every one of those fighters would have been intercepted by homing missiles from either the Death Star itself or the Death Star's fighters long before they got within visual range.
Same thing here, heavy jamming, active tracking devices!
The entire history of warfare is marked by new technologies, followed rapidly by technology to counter that technology. If powerful jammers were developed, there would be an answer to them in short order.
Now reread what you have just written. Does it make any sense? Or do you think that the second the newest ATGM is reveald someoby immidatelly invents a new type of armor to counter it?!
[QUOTE="pianist"]That attitude sounds as suspiciously short-sighted as the battleship buffs who felt that aircraft would never pose a serious threat to battleships in WWII.CaptHawkeye
Space is nothing like water. You seem to be casually ignoring the fact that Star Destoyers fly to.
They fly... very, very slowly apparently, because fighters are buzzing around them like angry bees while they sit there, blasting away ineffectively with their turrets.
If you're going to take the time to build a ship as massive as the death star, you're going to plan for EVERY possibility.
They DID. The exhasut shaft was RAY SHIELDED and COVERED with anti aircraft weaponry.
Except the anti-aircraft weaponry was useless...
Shuttles don't pose much threat in the Star Trek universe either, but any capital ship has the weapons necessary to deal with them nonetheless.
No, they don't. They shoot phasers at them. Woohoo, phasers are used for EVERYTHING.
If it does the job, why fault it? The point is that a capital warship armed with energy weapons NEEDS the ability to lock onto more maneuverable targets.
Clearly the Death Star was armed with laser turrets to protect against small, fast-moving targets... so why the heck not arm it with SAM-type guided missiles instead?
Jamming in SW works both ways. Not like it matters anyway, since the only ships fast enough to dodge the fire are fighters anyway.
Laser fire, being light, should move at the speed of light. The notion that anything can dodge a bolt fired at the speed of light is ridiculous. Hitting a figher with a turbolaser should be as simple as hitting a stationary target with a sniper rifle, especially when the target is flying directly towards you (as was the case in the exhaust shaft scenario).
For that matter, why are unguided turbolasers used AT ALL when guided missiles are so much more effective in destroying targets at long range?
Because lasers can't be intercepted and shot down by other lasers? Nor can they be jammed? It's redundant anyway. Return of the Jedi clearly showed scenes with Star Destroyers firing on the rebel fleet from hundreds of kilometers away.
Pfft. If the lasers can't even lock onto a fighter, how can they hit a missle that move at even greater speed? As for the jamming, once again HOJ is your friend.
It only makes perfect sense if you warp your view of reality to force it to make perfect sense. Just like aircraft don't have to be dangerous to properly equipped capital ships today, there was no reason that fighters should have posed any threat to the Death Star.
Correct. That's why it was destroyed by a boy wonder in the end.Didn't you notice that only Luke and two other fighters came back alive from that raid?
Frankly it would have made for a more compelling story if Luke had been destroyed and someone else had pulled it off. Most of the fighters were knocked off by the dog-fighting, not by anything the Death Star was doing.
Gross negligence in the weapons engineering allowed the Rebel attack to succeed.
Gross negligence on Tarkin's part allowed the raid to succed.
Fine. Gross negligence on both of their parts. Also... have these guys not heard of redundant power? Should it really be that simple to TURN OFF the defense systems for such a vastly important warship? It reminds me of the Simpson's episode where the cat burglar breaks into the museum and pulls a switch that is clearly labelled "Alarm System: Do not turn off."
On modern day Earth, every one of those fighters would have been intercepted by homing missiles from either the Death Star itself or the Death Star's fighters long before they got within visual range.
Tarkin did not consider them even worth the time. He was going to blow away Alderaan ASAP. Deploying fighters and long range weapons would be totally superfluouse.
Granted, his idiocy did come into play. But you'd think SOMETHING would have been done to counter the potential threat. For all he knew, those fighters were on a kamikaze mission, armed with a devastating secret weapon. Again, we're talking about a ship which is of enormous strategic importance to the Empire. Those types of capital ships are protected against all potential threats, no matter how unassuming they may appear. If a single Iraqi Mig-23 had approached a US carrier task force during Desert Storm, it would be blown out of the sky, no matter how low a threat it posed.
[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]Done and done. BTW, you should come Stardestroyer.net, you would just love it.
CaptHawkeye
:lol:
I've been to Stardestroyer.net. To be honest, those people seem a little too wrapped up in the fantasy. I may be a fan of Star Trek... but I'm not out there trying to figure out exactly how many terrawatts of power the Enterprise consumes while in warp flight...
Hahah. Of course it's easy for you to take pot shots at them from a distance. You're nice and safe here on Gamespot!
"Too wrapped up in the fantasy?" You might want to tell that to the millions of americans who talk about fantasy football teams every day and memorize huge swaths of sports statistics, mang.
Yes Mike Wong figured out the power outputs of the weapons. He's only an engineer FFS. He must bea complete loser for taking the time to do that!
Is that a tacit approval of Star Trek fanatic web sites I detect? How many of those have you visited? I wonder what sort of opinion you hold of them...
[quote="pianits"]That attitude sounds as suspiciously short-sighted as the battleship buffs who felt that aircraft would never pose a serious threat to battleships in WWII. You know what they say about failing to learn from mistakes. They had centuries to get it right.Zyamaman
How is this even relevant to our debate? WWII era fighers were capable of carrying anti-ship torpedoes, while SW fighers have absolutely no way of damaging a capital ship!
Except they blew up the most important ship in the Imperial fleet.:|
If you're going to take the time to build a ship as massive as the death star, you're going to plan for EVERY possibility.
Were they also supposed to take into account the possibillity that the rebels would lay their hands on the plans, figure out the only vulnurable spot of the DS have and use the Force to hit it?!
Yes. Because in their universe, with presumably vast intelligence services, they should be well aware of just how dangerous a saboteur using the Force would be.
Shuttles don't pose much threat in the Star Trek universe either, but any capital ship has the weapons necessary to deal with them nonetheless.
Shuttles pose enough of a threat in ST to be taken into account!!
No they don't. They're better off than SW fighters, but they're still no match at all for a capital warship.
Clearly the Death Star was armed with laser turrets to protect against small, fast-moving targets
Those were specifically pointed out to be anti-naval guns, not point defense. They were not supposed to hit those fighters!
So why was there no point defense?
so why the heck not arm it with SAM-type guided missiles instead? For that matter, why are unguided turbolasers used AT ALL when guided missiles are so much more effective in destroying targets at long range?
Heavy jamming.
Home on jam. These are SMALL targets. All you need is a proximity explosion with one of those vastly powerful Star Wars universe warheads and they're history. Hell, you could probably fire one massive missile into the centre of the pack and wipe the whole flight out with a single shot.
Gross negligence in the weapons engineering allowed the Rebel attack to succeed. On modern day Earth, every one of those fighters would have been intercepted by homing missiles from either the Death Star itself or the Death Star's fighters long before they got within visual range.
Same thing here, heavy jamming, active tracking devices!
And yet the Empire's fighters did have some sort of locking mechanism, which seemed to be a requirement of firing on enemy vessels. Funny little world, ain't it? I guess that jamming isn't as powerful as you'd have me believe. So a fighter can achieve burn-through and a space station can't? Is that what you want me to believe?
The entire history of warfare is marked by new technologies, followed rapidly by technology to counter that technology. If powerful jammers were developed, there would be an answer to them in short order.
Now reread what you have just written. Does it make any sense? Or do you think that the second the newest ATGM is reveald someoby immidatelly invents a new type of armor to counter it?!
Fighters are not a totally new development, and they were the ones carrying the 'heavy jammers' that you claim were capable of preventing a successful missile attack on them. You're trying to convince me that the Imperial Navy has heavy jammers, yet no counter for them, and that moreover, the Rebels have superior jammers to the Imperial Navy? Pftt. BS.
Except they blew up the most important ship in the Imperial fleet.pianist
Are you intentionally trying to piss me off, or what is it?!
This was already addressed like a hundred times - there was no way anyone could expect that torp to actually hit the exhaust port, because Luke used the Force to guide it! No conventional targteing system back then was able to do it!
Yes. Because in their universe, with presumably vast intelligence services, they should be well aware of just how dangerous a saboteur using the Force would be.
Have you even watched the movie?
Or the point that even the highest command staff on the DS doubted that the Force even exist 'till Vader Force-chocked one of them completely escaped your attention?!
No they don't.
They are capable of carrying photon torp in order to execute a suicide run into a capital ship - enough of a reason for you to want to shoot it down before it hits you!
Besides, ST naval phasers are also their point-defense guns. SW capital vessels have separate turrets to act as point-defense guns, but not the DS - it never had the need to.
So why was there no point defense?
Heavy jemming, heavy shielding, heavy armor - no fighter is capable to damage it, not directly.
Home on jam. These are SMALL targets. All you need is a proximity explosion with one of those vastly powerful Star Wars universe warheads and they're history. Hell, you could probably fire one massive missile into the centre of the pack and wipe the whole flight out with a single shot.
The ISD's got those - they're packing around 5 megaton worth of punch, but the DS never needed those.
And yet the Empire's fighters did have some sort of locking mechanism, which seemed to be a requirement of firing on enemy vessels. Funny little world, ain't it? I guess that jamming isn't as powerful as you'd have me believe. So a fighter can achieve burn-through and a space station can't? Is that what you want me to believe?
Haven't you noticed how much time it took Vader to get a lock on that rebel?
The turret computer simply don't have that much time - the fighter would be way out of his field of view by the time it would acquire a lock.
Fighters are not a totally new development, and they were the ones carrying the 'heavy jammers' that you claim were capable of preventing a successful missile attack on them. You're trying to convince me that the Imperial has heavy jammers, yet no counter for them, and that moreover, the Rebels have superior jammers to the Imperial Navy? Pftt. BS.
The DS carried the jammers, not the fighters, you missed the point here.
Thing is, those jammers are not one sides - they block all transmittions, not only for the enemy.
[quote="pianist"]Except they blew up the most important ship in the Imperial fleet.Zyamaman
Are you intentionally trying to piss me off, or what is it?!
This was already addressed like a hundred times - there was no way anyone could expect that torp to actually hit the exhaust port, because Luke used the Force to guide it! No conventional targteing system back then was able to do it!
1) There's no reason to get pissed off over a trivial debate like this. I presume you're arguing for the same reason that Hawkeye and I are arguing - just for the sake of doing it. When you get right down to it, none of these arguments can be conclusively proven, because we have only a limited amount of information about the fictional universe in question, and it IS a fictional universe with a fictional storyline that is designed to be over-the-top. You can't describe a millenia of humanoid development in a few movies.
2) We have videos of F-16s dropping LGBs down chimneys and you're telling me that there is no targeting system that can do the same thing in this universe? It has already been established that jamming has no effect on lasers (or the blasters would be useless)... so a laser guided missile would be impervious to jamming. Don't bring that up again. It seems to be your catch-all argument, and it's invalid in a world where lasers can be fired hundreds of kilometers with destructive force.
Yes. Because in their universe, with presumably vast intelligence services, they should be well aware of just how dangerous a saboteur using the Force would be.
Have you even watched the movie?
Or the point that even the highest command staff on the DS doubted that the Force even exist 'till Vader Force-chocked one of them completely escaped your attention?!
And I'm sure that in reality, Vader (himself a vastly important member of the Imperial force) would have allowed them to maintain this misguided belief. I don't think so.
No they don't.
They are capable of carrying photon torp in order to execute a suicide run into a capital ship - enough of a reason for you to want to shoot it down before it hits you!
Besides, ST naval phasers are also their point-defense guns. SW capital vessels have separate turrets to act as point-defense guns, but not the DS - it never had the need to.
But it did need to... and from what you see in the combat in SW, the point defense systems on larger vessels aren't much better than the turrets on the DS. Remember the tie fighter attack on the Millenium Falcon? They were firing their turrets like flak... and those were clearly maneuverable weapons that could only be considered point defense.
So why was there no point defense?
Heavy jemming, heavy shielding, heavy armor - no fighter is capable to damage it, not directly.
Shortly after WWII, people started designing aircraft without cannons, because they were deemed obsolete and un-necessary for the defense of the aircraft. After all, guns are nothing compared to guided missiles. But then they brought the cannons back. Why? Because they realized that the option to use the cannon should exist in an emergency. It's the same rationale with warships - they still have flak guns, despite their anti-aircraft missile loads, just in case the missiles fail. Long shot or not, it's pretty short-sighted to build your most important capital ship without point defense. What happens if fighters become vastly more dangerous in the future, for instance?
Home on jam. These are SMALL targets. All you need is a proximity explosion with one of those vastly powerful Star Wars universe warheads and they're history. Hell, you could probably fire one massive missile into the centre of the pack and wipe the whole flight out with a single shot.
The ISD's got those - they're packing around 5 megaton worth of punch, but the DS never needed those.
Again, it's got every other weapon you can think of... why not pack giant missiles? It's not like they'd be useful only against fighters anyways.
And yet the Empire's fighters did have some sort of locking mechanism, which seemed to be a requirement of firing on enemy vessels. Funny little world, ain't it? I guess that jamming isn't as powerful as you'd have me believe. So a fighter can achieve burn-through and a space station can't? Is that what you want me to believe?
Haven't you noticed how much time it took Vader to get a lock on that rebel?
The turret computer simply don't have that much time - the fighter would be way out of his field of view by the time it would acquire a lock.
And how about that cannon they were flying directly towards? I can buy this argument for perpendicular trajectories, but not head-on trajectories or tail-on. That is, after all, the trajectory that Vader had when he shot his opponents down.
Fighters are not a totally new development, and they were the ones carrying the 'heavy jammers' that you claim were capable of preventing a successful missile attack on them. You're trying to convince me that the Imperial has heavy jammers, yet no counter for them, and that moreover, the Rebels have superior jammers to the Imperial Navy? Pftt. BS.
The DS carried the jammers, not the fighters, you missed the point here.
Thing is, those jammers are not one sides - they block all transmittions, not only for the enemy.
Quick question - why would you turn on jammers that prevent your weapons from locking onto the enemy when your enemy is not equipped with guided weapons? Does that make any sense to you at all? All it's doing is putting YOUR forces at a disadvantage.
I'm out for now. Work calls.
Which movies do you like Star Wars or Star Trek. For me I like both.Slayervorge3000
Teh impossible! I feel a spy is among us.
2) We have videos of F-16s dropping LGBs down chimneys and you're telling me that there is no targeting system that can do the same thing in this universe? It has already been established that jamming has no effect on lasers (or the blasters would be useless)... so a laser guided missile would be impervious to jamming. Don't bring that up again. It seems to be your catch-all argument, and it's invalid in a world where lasers can be fired hundreds of kilometers with destructive force.
What makes you think blaster has anything to do with lasers?
What makes you think lasers guidance systems cannot be disrupted?
And I'm sure that in reality, Vader (himself a vastly important member of the Imperial force) would have allowed them to maintain this misguided belief. I don't think so.
So you ignore canon proof in favor of your own speculatons?
Besides, Vader had no reason to educate them about the nature of the Force becasue there was no reason to - when the DS was designed it was believed that there was no jedi left in the galaxy.
But it did need to... and from what you see in the combat in SW, the point defense systems on larger vessels aren't much better than the turrets on the DS.
Proof?
Remember the tie fighter attack on the Millenium Falcon? They were firing their turrets like flak... and those were clearly maneuverable weapons that could only be considered point defense.
What makes you think that you can draw a comparison line between the MF and a capital ship?
Shortly after WWII, people started designing aircraft without cannons, because they were deemed obsolete and un-necessary for the defense of the aircraft. After all, guns are nothing compared to guided missiles. But then they brought the cannons back. Why? Because they realized that the option to use the cannon should exist in an emergency. It's the same rationale with warships - they still have flak guns, despite their anti-aircraft missile loads, just in case the missiles fail. Long shot or not, it's pretty short-sighted to build your most important capital ship without point defense. What happens if shuttles become vastly more dangerous in the future, for instance?
It's like claiming that modern ships should carry anti-mosquito guns just in the case the latter would develop the ability to carry tac-nukes! The tech that would make starfighters dangerous to the DS was nowhere in horizon of their scientific development!
Again, it's got every other weapon you can think of... why not pack giant missiles? It's not like they'd be useful only against fighters anyways.
First, the jamming it, itself emits! Second is the fighter's apparent ability to dodge guided missiles, like we saw in Ep. III.
And how about that cannon they were flying directly towards? I can buy this argument for perpendicular trajectories, but not head-on trajectories or tail-on. That is, after all, the trajectory that Vader had when he shot his opponents down.
I said "active tracking system", they also have passive tracking systems, that's how they fight under the effect of the jammers, otherwise they would never be able to engage other capships.
Quick question - why would you turn on jammers that prevent your weapons from locking onto the enemy when your enemy is not equipped with guided weapons? Does that make any sense to you at all? All it's doing is putting YOUR forces at a disadvantage.
What do you mean "not equipped with guided weapons"?! And what do you think those proton torpedoes are?!
That's why they activated the jammers - they knew the rebels are heading for the exhaust port, and they knew they can't intercept them with their guns!
[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]Done and done. BTW, you should come Stardestroyer.net, you would just love it.
pianist
:lol:
I've been to Stardestroyer.net. To be honest, those people seem a little too wrapped up in the fantasy. I may be a fan of Star Trek... but I'm not out there trying to figure out exactly how many terrawatts of power the Enterprise consumes while in warp flight...
Hahah. Of course it's easy for you to take pot shots at them from a distance. You're nice and safe here on Gamespot!
"Too wrapped up in the fantasy?" You might want to tell that to the millions of americans who talk about fantasy football teams every day and memorize huge swaths of sports statistics, mang.
Yes Mike Wong figured out the power outputs of the weapons. He's only an engineer FFS. He must bea complete loser for taking the time to do that!
Is that a tacit approval of Star Trek fanatic web sites I detect? How many of those have you visited? I wonder what sort of opinion you hold of them...
I've seen Star Trek websites. And guess what? The only way the Trekkies win is by making up their own psuedo scientific laws and rules to a debate. Mike Wong does not make up anything, he uses canon sources and information to form his analysis.
They fly... very, very slowly apparently, because fighters are buzzing around them like angry bees while they sit there, blasting away ineffectively with their turrets.
Watch the movies again,The Star Destroyers were in tight formation due to the Empire's orders and were incapable of gunning it up to full speed. And in case you didn't notice, the Empire was killing lots of Rebel fighters.
Except the anti-aircraft weaponry was useless...
No it damn well WASN'T. Did you notice the the two X-Wing's after the shield generator was destroyed? How loud did the guy have to scream "SHE'S GONNA BLOW!"?
If it does the job, why fault it? The point is that a capital warship armed with energy weapons NEEDS the ability to lock onto more maneuverable targets.
Which the Impierals have got. Rebel fighters are picked off like crazy over Endor.
Laser fire, being light, should move at the speed of light. The notion that anything can dodge a bolt fired at the speed of light is ridiculous. Hitting a figher with a turbolaser should be as simple as hitting a stationary target with a sniper rifle, especially when the target is flying directly towards you (as was the case in the exhaust shaft scenario).
Turbolasers are not lasers. End of story on that issue.
Pfft. If the lasers can't even lock onto a fighter, how can they hit a missle that move at even greater speed? As for the jamming, once again HOJ is your friend.
Doesn't matter. Space jamming was strong enough to literally make Rebel missles miss the exhaust shaft.
Frankly it would have made for a more compelling story if Luke had been destroyed and someone else had pulled it off. Most of the fighters were knocked off by the dog-fighting, not by anything the Death Star was doing.
How would it have been compelling if Luke died? Someone ELSE pulling it off? Red leader TRIED to do that and ****ed up. Frankly, it would have been absurd if someone could make that shot who WASN'T a force adept.
Fine. Gross negligence on both of their parts. Also... have these guys not heard of redundant power? Should it really be that simple to TURN OFF the defense systems for such a vastly important warship? It reminds me of the Simpson's episode where the cat burglar breaks into the museum and pulls a switch that is clearly labelled "Alarm System: Do not turn off."
Oh come on, you're telling me its a problem that they can't down their ENTIRE reactor instaneously because of a one in a million shot? I suppose its a problem I can't unload a tank's cannon within a billionth of a second because their is the possibility someone could fire a shot straight down it.
Granted, his idiocy did come into play. But you'd think SOMETHING would have been done to counter the potential threat. For all he knew, those fighters were on a kamikaze mission,armed with a devastating secret weapon
What the hell? What KIND of secret could the Rebels possibly find that could miraculously blow up a space station the size of a planet?
. Again, we're talking about a ship which is of enormous strategic importance to the Empire. Those types of capital ships are protected against all potential threats, no matter how unassuming they may appear.
IIRC, the Death Star was fresh out of drydock during Episode 4 and Tarkin decided to take it for a personal one man show than ally with the fleet. Again, Tarkin was an idiot.
If a single Iraqi Mig-23 had approached a US carrier task force during Desert Storm, it would be blown out of the sky, no matter how low a threat it posed.
Unfortunantly, if a guy like Tarkin was in command of the US carrier task force, he would probably let it strafe ships at will.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment