Post a quote, that could have just been text but instead for some stupid reason is an image, entertain me!

Stengah wrote:

Yeah, the argument is always the Enterprise vs a star destroyer, not the Millenium Falcon.

Millennium Falcon blew up the second Death Star. Weedman's sketchy frenemy has an impressive record with that old van.

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ggp7UQN.jpg)

I don't want to bring up the USS Cole or anything. But asymmetrical warfare is a major threat to US naval assets.

NSFW - language

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/h2gdAOY.jpeg)

They were not the best writer of ...descriptive thingies...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/yff40ch.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4ku4huj.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/BYkuQ3h.png)

"Sir, this is a Target."

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/vP498Qu.jpg)

The medical insurance community on the other hand..

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/vP498Qu.jpg)

1. This picture is the paragon of this thread's purpose and objective.
2. I kept waiting for a joke punchline.

maverickz wrote:

1. This picture is the paragon of this thread's purpose and objective.
2. I kept waiting for a joke punchline.

The US Healthcare system is the joke.

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/FRL1nRyp/5-B20-ECFC-3271-4548-B23-A-F79-E2234-EA93.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Db3Exo1.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/vms849j.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/pMhkIpJ.jpeg)

NVM

IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/ygQGkRx/image.png)

I was dicking around standing on the end of a rake or shovel while talking to some folks. And after a few times joking about getting hit in the face I slipped and the damn rake pole straight up smacked me in the mouth. I thought I lost teeth it hurt so bad. After spitting blood and inspecting the damage I just had loads of teeth shaped holes in my lips. It sucked for days.

Stengah wrote:

Yeah, the argument is always the Enterprise vs a star destroyer, not the Millenium Falcon.

All the weapon sizes/power levels are like four orders of magnitude higher in Star Wars. If we just take the fictional numbers as straight fact, I don't think the Enterprise would even qualify as a runabout for a Star Destroyer. The Falcon would probably outgun it substantially, although it wouldn't have the cool insta-aim phaser ring. That ring, however, probably wouldn't be very effective against the Falcon's shields, where one pass with the MF's anti-fighter turrets going would probably blow right through the Enterprise's shields and well into the hull.

Of course, all that's based on some writers somewhere adding more zeroes in one universe than in another. "My imaginary units are bigger!"

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Db3Exo1.jpg)

My wife will have nothing all day except a 4:30 dinner date with our neighbor 2 doors down and still be late for it.

Malor wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Yeah, the argument is always the Enterprise vs a star destroyer, not the Millenium Falcon.

All the weapon sizes/power levels are like four orders of magnitude higher in Star Wars. If we just take the fictional numbers as straight fact, I don't think the Enterprise would even qualify as a runabout for a Star Destroyer. The Falcon would probably outgun it substantially, although it wouldn't have the cool insta-aim phaser ring. That ring, however, probably wouldn't be very effective against the Falcon's shields, where one pass with the MF's anti-fighter turrets going would probably blow right through the Enterprise's shields and well into the hull.

Of course, all that's based on some writers somewhere adding more zeroes in one universe than in another. "My imaginary units are bigger!"

The problem with this is that even the good guys in Star Wars miss most of their shots and even their most advanced tech is cobbled together with parts from the discount bin at radioshack, whereas in Star Trek ships almost never miss and their tech is bound only by whatever the circumstances call for at any given time. The Falcon will come in for a 1940’s strafing run and the Enterprise will reverse the polarity of their gluons and either erase Han’s memory or accidentally send the bridge crew back in time and prevent the Falcon from ever being built.

Have seen GI Joe cartoons that displayed more weapon accuracy than the average Star Wars character or ship. Also worth mentioning is that Star Wars ships maneuver in zero g like they are still in atmospheres.

You ever notice that when the Joes are shooting at vehicles or androids, they're suddenly way more accurate?

Ok, I feel like we're all just dancing around being the first to bring up this video.

ruhk wrote:
Malor wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Yeah, the argument is always the Enterprise vs a star destroyer, not the Millenium Falcon.

All the weapon sizes/power levels are like four orders of magnitude higher in Star Wars. If we just take the fictional numbers as straight fact, I don't think the Enterprise would even qualify as a runabout for a Star Destroyer. The Falcon would probably outgun it substantially, although it wouldn't have the cool insta-aim phaser ring. That ring, however, probably wouldn't be very effective against the Falcon's shields, where one pass with the MF's anti-fighter turrets going would probably blow right through the Enterprise's shields and well into the hull.

Of course, all that's based on some writers somewhere adding more zeroes in one universe than in another. "My imaginary units are bigger!"

The problem with this is that even the good guys in Star Wars miss most of their shots and even their most advanced tech is cobbled together with parts from the discount bin at radioshack, whereas in Star Trek ships almost never miss and their tech is bound only by whatever the circumstances call for at any given time. The Falcon will come in for a 1940’s strafing run and the Enterprise will reverse the polarity of their gluons and either erase Han’s memory or accidentally send the bridge crew back in time and prevent the Falcon from ever being built.

It's probably not fair to grant anyone plot armor, since in theory you have dueling writers.

Heretk wrote:

Have seen GI Joe cartoons that displayed more weapon accuracy than the average Star Wars character or ship. Also worth mentioning is that Star Wars ships maneuver in zero g like they are still in atmospheres.

True, but Star Trek vessels hardly ever maneuver at all, it's always the bad guys zooming around while they remain effectively stationary. I think that would make up for a great deal of the weapon inaccuracy problems.

All I'm ultimately trying to say is that Star Wars tech has a lot more zeroes in it, and even Weedman's space technical would do horrific damage to ships from the Star Trek universe. Luke blasting away at TIEs in the turret was probably throwing around about ten times more firepower than the entire phaser array of a Constitution-class frigate.

You can mentally add more zeroes on the Trek side if you like, it's all fiction: you could argue that either side's writers got that detail wrong. But this argument was deployed against me once upon a time, and I found it was ultimately pretty persuasive: if we just take the universes as written, sh*tty old rattletrap Star Wars ships are insanely dangerous compared to the slick, futuristic Federation vessels.

There is, of course, a counter-argument that transporters and food replicators would take such insane amounts of energy that their weapons were incorrectly specced in the technical manuals, but I found the 'established documentation' argument to be compelling. It requires the least additional hand-waving on my part to construct scenarios.

Well, if you want to weed out the franchise tropes and focus solely on what the ships are capable of, the battle would go like this:
1. the Falcon aims up it’s shot and-
2. the Enterprise teleports everyone on board the Falcon 50 meters in a random direction where they suffocate in the vacuum of space

I’m just going off what’s in the films/shows, which all consistently portray Star Wars technology as being only slightly more advanced than a toaster with a flashing light duct taped to it.

If I'm not mistaken they use lasers in Star Wars:

Malor wrote:

True, but Star Trek vessels hardly ever maneuver at all, it's always the bad guys zooming around while they remain effectively stationary. I think that would make up for a great deal of the weapon inaccuracy problems.

The Enterprise is actually maneuvering quite a lot, it's just that the camera is fixed to the ship's reference frame. That's why it looks like it's just floating there. There's no real inertial frame out in space, and they had to pick a reference frame for the camera. And the inertial dampeners are calibrated to counter the maneuvering acceleration, that's why they only shake during attacks.

Star Wars uses "blasters." No further explanation is forthcoming. Most of the calculations on their damage values come from The Empire Strikes Back and observations of a Star Destroyer vaporizing asteroids.

Star Trek ships do plenty of maneuvering on shows produced after they swapped models for computers, particularly on Deep Space 9.

The real question is, in a battle between a 40k Imperium Battleship and every named ship from the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, how quickly would the battleship win?

ruhk wrote:

The real question is, in a battle between a 40k Imperium Battleship and every named ship from the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, how quickly would the battleship win?

One of the Star Trek ships would find a way to remotely activate the Battleship's Warp Drive while disabling the Gellar Field. Then the demons would destroy everyone.

Vargen wrote:

Star Wars uses "blasters." No further explanation is forthcoming. Most of the calculations on their damage values come from The Empire Strikes Back and observations of a Star Destroyer vaporizing asteroids.

There were supposed 'technical manuals' released for both universes at some time, probably in the 80s, and I first heard about the multiple-orders-of-magnitude difference in the 90s. It was an argument from supposedly authoritative sources, though whether any source can be authoritative in a fictional universe is questionable.

And my source on that was decades ago, so they could have gotten it wrong, too. The only technical manuals I've ever personally read were for real things, not fiction.

ruhk wrote:

which all consistently portray Star Wars technology as being only slightly more advanced than a toaster with a flashing light duct taped to it.

Never tell me the odds!