A fight between the empire and the federation go alot further than merely crunching ship and gear stats in any case.
This is true.......to a point. There comes a point where the technological gulf between two powers is simply so great that it cannot be compensated for in any way possible.
The empire beeing a hyge tyrant need to have a military presence to subdue the worlds under its controll, they are also currently engaged in hostilities against the rebellion/alliance, they need to keep most of their armade tied up with what its currently dooing or they will have a full scale uprising on their hands. That for one cannot be ignored. The empire has no allies, they just have themselves and a 900 thousand unruly worlds that would like nothing better than to regain their freedom.
The majority of Imperial worlds are quite content to be part of the Empire, due to Palpatine's enormous propaganda machinations. This is in no small part due to the predominance of the human species within the Star Wars galaxy, and generally the oppressed of the Empire tend to be aliens..............and you very rarely hear about civil demonstrations trying to end anti-alien sentiment. In fact, you never here about such.
The federation on the other hand exists in a universe with other powers close at hand, they are in an alliance with the klingons, and the klingons would most likely be pulled into the war. A war would not start with the empire steamrolling the federation, it would have a first encounter, and then it could go alot of ways, some involving diplomacy, some skirmishing, and some a buildup of forces.
Most of those other powers are expansionist, militarist and imperialist in nature. Assuming the Federation gets the first contact, and then everything comes out.............I foresee some very pissed off Klingons; the Empire's industrial and superluminal transit advantages would make the Klingon/Romulan competition for territory radically different, should one side (like the Klingons) gain Imperial technology.
Though actually getting such technology..............is unlikely.
In any case it would not be a mortal combat fight with each character respresenting the massed military presence of each faction.
Of course it won't be- for the Empire. The Federation's relative size/population density ratio, with their widely scattered colony worlds, allows a relatively small ISD task force to simply pick apart Federation territory.
You also need to take into considerations the romulans, because there is a very strong chanse that they would realize that the empire means to controll any world -dont need great intell to come to that conclusion, and that once the federation and klingons fall they will be next.
It's actually rather up-in-the-air on that; the Romulans seek to advance their own interests, and a method of doing so might be to ally with the Empire, particularly for access to their advanced technologies.
Also the fight will most likely be in federation space simply because of the fact that the empire would be the aggressive part with the federatition taking a defensive role. (atleast in the start)
The ability of the Federation to counterattack into Imperial territory depends on the vs crossing; that is, is it a wormhole (presumably somewhere in Federation territory)? is it an intergalactic Imperial expedition? Is it a hyperspace travel accident?
For the last, then there's unlikely to be more than a handful of ships, and, ergo, more likely to be a lot more bargaining on the part of the Imperials; they can't get reinforcements and resupply is a very iffy thing. The second option would likely have brought ten times (or more!) the crew amounts of the vessels deployed, for both replacing killed crewers and for the likely construction of new vessels via a mobile shipyard that would presumably be deployed with the expedition (repairs are important!).
In any case, for the latter two, there's no hope of Federation reprisals against Imperial territory; it's either too far or a totally unknown area. For the first...........given the low population density of Federation territory relative to the number of member worlds and colonies, it could be a very, very long time before they find the wormhole. Which means the Empire (assuming the Imperials find it first; not totally unreasonable IMO) will have had time to fortify it.
i must say imo that it seems quite clear that the federation has more advanced technology, they just need a screwdriver and a few hours to do almost anything lol. In star wars they have to make do with what they have, they dont have a macgyver sadly.
I put this down to the fact that the technology that SW has to work with is far more situationally flexible. Trek tech can do a lot of stuff, but either it's schizo-roled or it does one thing pretty well. The difference really lies in the relative static of SW technology being the probably result of reaching a technological peak.
None of you are military analysts specialicing in predicting outcomes, and even not the very best military analyst would attempt to predict anything in this case given that we hardly know anything abouth the respective factions science level.
You don't need to be a military analyst. Generally speaking, you examine past behaviours of each power to build up a "psych profile", if you will, of that star-nation. From their, you take industrial capacity, economic capability, naval power, and superluminal, firepower, and durability capabilities into account.
Wrapping that all up, well, it indicates that the Empire is an economic and industrial supergiant compared to the Federation, has far superior FTL capability, as well as superior firepower and durability.
For us its just magitech.
It's called "black box" analysis, AFAIK. You treat the magitech as a black box; energy goes in, funky stuff happens, energy goes out for thermodynamic balance. Both series' FTL drives are like this; you put energy into it, you go FTL, and then you stop after you stop putting energy into it.
So why dont you just agree that the outcome would be impossibly to predict accuratly, sure whiskey can say that he think the empire has a better chanse and zeta and redneck can believe that the federation has a higher chanse but that should be it.
First off, see this:
I never said the Federation even had a chance, based on Whiskey's numbers, I see very little hope of a Federation victory. As much as I like the Federation, they just don't have the technology or manpower to fight the Empire.
Secondly, it is possible to accurately predict the outcome. Death Star 2 constructed to 60% completion in 6 months vs the 13 year cycle for 4 Galaxy-class starships- and also remember that the DS2 was a fully mobile, hyperdrive-equipped, planet-destroying battlestation.
Star Wars hasn't advanced its technology noticeably for a couple of thousand years.
You do realize that this could be because they've reached a technological plateau, or that perhaps they've discovered all science relevant to such technologies?
The technology, energy, and capabilities shown far outstrip Star Wars,
Evidence other than a nebulous statement, please.
Whiskey, I would ask this of you: Can YOU prove, on screen, that turbolasers have the power you claim? Can you prove that their hulls are as strong as you claim? From what I've seen, there's plenty of evidence showing they are not as powerful as claimed, and their hulls, since they take damage from those shots, obviously aren't that strong as well.
I don't need to; the ICS books do that quite well, as does extrapolation from known capabilities referenced in the EU. A lone Imperial-class Star Destroyer is capable of a BDZ operation in the course of a 24-hour period; such an operation leaves the surface of a planet barren.
This requires a minimum of 14,000 megatons of firepower. 14 gigatons, in other words. That's 3 orders of magnitude greater than the maximum theoretical yield of a photon torpedo.
BTW, you still haven't provided evidence that photon torpedo warheads are kept stored as liquid antideuterium- or that it's even antideuterium at all. It could be anti-helium, or anti-hydrogen for all we know.
Also keep in mind that given the durability shown in the movies, and the firepower of the weapons- that they aren't the most durable things against their own weapons is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand; the superior firepower that they are capable of directing will tear through the comparatively weaker Feddie hulls, while Fed weapons will generally do no more than scratch the Imperial shield systems.
I will not be on for a few days due to final exams. When I get back, I will find and read your responses, so it won't be till Friday.
but it seems that Whiskey is hellbent about proving StarWars universe being "superior" than StarTrek universe.
No. Neither universe is superior; it's just that in a military conflict the Empire trounces the Federation.
Cause the thread name says SW vs ST, not GW vs Feds
Generally speaking, "SWvsST" is understood to be "Galactic Empire vs the United Federation of Planets" (not GW BTW; that's a British tabletop wargame company). Even the OP understood this, as he explicitly mentions "Federation vs Empire" battles.
Anyway its quite funny, youre trying to argument each other using "math", when clearly tech in both universes is technobabble and BS, moreso in SW than ST, i suppose.
There are technical publications of both series that establish numerical capabilities- it's just that, unfortunately for ST, the Trek tech books aren't accepted within the Trek continuity. I'll further note that ST's technology is far more technobabble than anything Star Wars has brought up; SW never really bothers to explain how the tech works. SW tech is automatically accepted as functioning properly and it's left at that.
I think by claiming SW would beat ST (or vice-versa), youre just claiming that your universe of choice is more ridiculous than the other, when it comes to the "science" background.
Once again, it's not the entire settings taking each other on; it's the Empire and the Federation engaging in a military conflict. Looking at the numbers produced for both series (despite the non-canon status of Trek technical manuals), the Empire squishes the Federation like a bug.
Anyway, these pointless arguments clearly entertain you, so whatever floats your boat.
TBH, as of late SWvsST doesn't particularly entertain me. This debate I've got going with Redneck-boy is fun because right now I'm just spamming him with "show me the evidence/proof" that he is incapable of producing.
I would be lying, if i said, it was not fun to read, but i would still prefer, if you tried to explain, why you prefer either universe, there is shitload of reasons why people love or hate them and i would be curious about yours.
Preference based on enjoyability; well, I enjoyed the DS9 episodes that I watched, and I loved the entirety of the SW movies, though the prequels I liked more for the effects and the awesome spess battles of the opening of EP3. What irks me most about Trek is that they try to explain the technology by stringing together meaningless phrases of scientific or scientific-sounding words. Generally, these strings of technobabble make absolutely no sense when you actually look at the meanings of the individual terms.
Oh, yeah, and Voyager. The entirety of Voyager irks me.
As for the actual debate- it's a discussion about the military capabilities of each power and how they would fare in a war against each other. Just looking at the numbers given from the (formerly canon) tech manual and the (always canon) ICS books- the Empire makes the Federation go *squish*.
StarTrek factions are much more interesting and "grey" to me, having various characteristics and motives to their actions..,
While I respect your opinion, I also chalk it up to the flavor of each setting; SW has traditionally been about a few people causing galaxy-changing events. The movies are also centered on Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader); they're more-or-less the story of Vader's rise to being a Jedi, his fall to the Dark Side, and his eventual redemption (at least in the eyes of his son, Luke).
In contrast, Trek is pitched as more of a possible future, and most of the powers are based on actual extant or former nations- though TOS Klingons were much better than TNG-onward Klingons; they had a much more interesting society that wasn't all "HONOUR IN BATTLE!!1!"
and having far more interesting ship models
TBH, I hate most of the Trek ship designs. To me, they look very spindly and fragile- I mean, a good hit on a nacelle pylon of the Galaxy-class and it's crippled and left adrift. There's also the greater iconic nature of most SW ships; Star Wars has a far greater cultural permeation than Star Trek, IMO. Among the more "nerdy" portions of the population, it could swing either way, I don't really know enough to say which is more popular.
But for mainstream pop culture, there's a lot more Star Wars that's become pop culture than Star Trek.
The inconsistency within ST technobabble might be annoying to me as well. but i was always more sensitive toward the inconsistency in stellar cartography or to visual errors in CGI/redresses of the same model.
Well, describe some of these inconsistencies and/or visual errors of models. I ask because I'm actually interested in what you have to say on that.
Saying all that, i certainly love StarWars and hold them in high regard, no matter the composition of the ISD hull or yield of the turbolasers...but i think those 617 episodes of Trek create more appealing universe to me than few, although brilliant, SW movies.
I don't really like Star Trek that much as of late; IMO, the picture it paints is just too optimistic. It just seems to lack a lot of depth- but OTOH, SW is far too much about galaxy-shattering/-changing events, especially in a direct manner. I'm actually working on a little project wherein the protagonists actions end up having "galactic" consequences- but it's exactly that, consequences, ripple effects. Most of which are unintended by the protagonists (a little nod to the Butterfly Effect, that).
Large numbers of rubber-forehead aliens are also not very cool. At least make the rubber-forehead aliens act alien.