Since this is actually directed at me, and I was out of town the past few days, and lazy for a couple more on top of that, I'll reply now.
Well, Truthfully all I can say is WOW! Now Whiskey, I appreciate that you enjoy Star Wars and have a passion for it and I agree that it is a good franchise and a good time at the theater.
But what I can't do is say anything good about the Star Wars universe when it comes to physical reality and how it relates to us and our scientific knowledge of the entire environment around us.
Since when have I claimed that Star Wars is scientifically consistent with reality as we understand it? The answer would be NEVER. Following that up, is the fact that analyzing each series empirically requires only Suspension of Disbelief and using basic scientific principles to quantify things. They have FTL, so we conveniently ignore Einstein for analysis of it. Obviously they have it, obviously it works, and obviously the universe doesn't explode from the fact that, as far as modern science is concerned, FTL=time travel.
Point 1. Faster than light travel is impossible (Einstein theorized it), but Star Trek actually tries to explain it with an ACTUAL physicist on staff and how they get around this in a plausible way. Star Wars on the other hand doesn't even try thus making it irrelevant in reality.
I'm going to simply point out that you obviously didn't read Einstein's theory very well, as what little I understand of it indicates that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light, but says nothing about superluminal travel. Conventional wisdom is that FTL is impossible due to the fact that, according to relativity, it would be equivalent to time travel and it might be possible to form universe-breaking paradoxes, which either requires some method to not break the universe or no FTL.
OTOH, a theorized particle, the tachyon, which would be a superluminal-velocity-only particle, is possible under Einstein's relativity.
I'll also point out that in the context of science fiction, it's oftentimes better to let the explanation be tantamount to "a wizard did it" when dealing with such handwavium devices as FTL drives and shields. This is what I rather like about SW; they have no science consultants because they simply don't bother with explaining how stuff works; it works because it does and that's that.
Incidentally, the inverse is true for me as well; I rather dislike Star Trek's incessant, pretentious need to explain how all of their tech works, when it's pretty obvious that it's all tantamount to "a wizard did it". That they hired an actual physicist to devise plausible (IE: not possible but believable) explanations is relatively unimportant.
It's also irrelevant to the purposes of a versus debate.
Point 2. Lasers to Phasers. We know that they are real with slightly different properties but still much more in the realm of sci fi. But the point here is that a laser is a single continuous stream of light that generates massive amounts of heat energy in a single beam of light (FACT). Star Trek does this but Star Wars makes it like a tracer round from a modern rifle, but if that where an ACTUAL laser (energy) once the end energy source is cut off it will dissipate into the surrounding environment.
I'm going to start by saying you simply have no idea what you're talking about when you talk of laser weaponry, and return to this particular point in a moment. I'll further second Zeta's comment that SW lasers aren't RL-lasers. A tank's main gun is called a cannon, except for the fact that a cannon historically fired a cannon-ball, usually with a bursting charge to create lots of shrapnel.
A tank's main gun does not fire such munitions.
Before I get back to your misconceptions of laser devices, I'll point out that phasers != lasers, and that phasers are completely fictional weapons. Oh, yeah, and the USS Defiant would like to have a word with you, as it had "tracer-style" phaser cannons.
Now to disabuse you of your silly notions of laser devices. First of, a laser is not invariably a single, continuous-beam device. Such items do exist, and are termed "continuous-beam lasers", or more colloquially, "heat rays". These devices are intended to function somewhat similar to what you describe; they heat up the surface of whatever you're aiming at, whether it's a deuterium/tritium fuel pellet in a fusion chamber or an ICBM.
But that's really a poor laser design for most applications, especially for a weapon. A pulse laser, colloquially termed a "blaster", works much differently in that instead of a single, continuous beam, it delivers multiple, nanosecond-to-microsecond pulses that "drill" through whatever you shoot at. This also means you get messy, ragged, wounds that are somewhat similar to gunshots, as the damage is by mechanical effects rather than thermal. Pulse lasers also benefit from superior material penetration, like armor. Further, if you pulse the laser fast enough, then you get a functionally continuous beam.....just not an actually continuous one.
And, for the coup de grace to your misconceptions on lasers, and laser weapons in particular, I refer you to these pages here. Savvy?
Point 3. George Lucas is a visionary in the motion picture realm and has changed the lives of millions of people with his art! But he is also a raging idiot when it comes to actual science, case in point, Episode 3 with General grievous's ship damaged and going down towards the planet. Now, when you think of space you think of there being no gravity as there is on most planets (like Earth), unless you have gravity technology in place. But in this scene with the ship going down Mr. Lucas thinks that space is a 2D plane that if you were to go down? what is down in space? then you will be walking sideways down an elevator shaft until it's upright! If you have gravity tech on your ship that makes it so you can walk and not fly around your ship while it's in space then you can do any kind of movement in space and it won't affect the people inside!
You're ignoring the fact that the Invisible Hand is still trapped in Coruscant's gravity well. There's also the fact that the gravity tech in SW is equivalent to "a wizard did it"; we have no idea how it works, what happens when it gets broken, that sort of thing. All we know is that it works, except for a few situations.....like when the Invisible Hand began to plummet towards Coruscant before leveling out.
That he is a "raging idiot WRT actual science" is similarly irrelevant to a versus debate or a versus mod for that matter. In an empirically-driven vs debate, you consider the sources to be factual documentation, and ignore authorial intent unless you actually need to consider it.
Now I want to close off because I can go on for a while but needless to say that you can quote from wiki or other user generated info on any genre to try to fill any blanks that may arise but the truth is the ONLY canon that is real in both universes is that of the source material's, ie movies, show's. And most of the movies in Star Wars where from George Lucas's writing and direction where most of Star Trek was from various minds and collaborative efforts to realize one mans vision, Gene Roddenberry.
I want to say I'm surprised by this bit, but that'd be a lie. See, the argument you present here WRT canon for each setting ignores the SW canon structure......which, while it occasionally includes some pants-on-head-stupid things, so does Star Trek (99% of ST:VOY anyone?).
What you ignore, however, is the fact that there are multiple sourcebooks included in the SW canon structure, like the Incredible Cross Sections books (of which I have one, and I enjoy pouring over it), which, while subservient to the films in the "continuity hierarchy" (as the SW writers don't consider it "canon" so much as "continuity", but that's an internal matter), also do not contradict the films in any way/shape/form. So you can't discount them.
You also seem to have a problem with propping up Gene Rodenberry as the greatest man alive......which is was not, and is not. Especially since he's, you know, dead.
So this mod wouldn't work because one source material will be confined by realism while the other might as well have fairies and dragons because it's realism is none existant!
This is just rude. For one thing, SW has never tried to be "realistic". It's tried to be a story about people, set against the backdrop of massive, galaxy-shattering wars. For another, Star Trek is far from realistic; no matter how you dress it up, replicators and transporters work because if they don't, the setting inexplicably falls apart.......except in some cases regarding transporters, but that's more a failure of lacking the foresight to consider the logical implications of said device.
To tell truth, the ending seasons of ST:DS9 had a pretty good amount of fairies/dragons/ridiculousness.......probably more than Star Wars, as the DS9 demons/angels/whatever-things weren't particularly consistent and the blatant mysticism was a completely schizo direction for the show to head in as Star Trek has rather consistently been more about "it's scientifically explainable" than "it's magic".
I also consider Star Trek to be somewhat pretentious because of the incessant need to explain how their magitech works.
Yes, there are so many things we don't understand, but to form a comparison between two forms of fiction you have to take into account that when one is basing itself more in the realm of reality and a very real possibility as compared to the other which... isn't, then there really isn't any comparison at all. It's like saying who would win in a fight, you in the here and now or Superman in a reality that could never exist?
For one thing, Superman would win the fight. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The fact that said fight can never happen has no bearing on the answer to the question. In a comparison between ST and SW, the fact that ST is supposedly more scientifically accurate than SW has no bearing on the questions asked when making the comparison.
Lasers are what they are described as in the movies. Fan explanations for the lack of science in sci fi does not make it the fiction that was created in the original art. Unlike Star Trek which has tried very hard to explain itself throughout it's series in a logical and scientific way, unlike Star Wars which just wants to make things go bang in a fun way!
As I pointed out above, just because they're called lasers doesn't make them lasers. Or are you arguing that ST warp drives are identical to the speculative, and impossible-to-function Alcubierre Drive?
Again, logic is unfortunately not on your side as with the gravity plating damaged (and as I said before) you would start floating around as there is zero gravity that surrounds the ship. They would NOT start to run sideways down an elevator shaft or fall down to the back end of a room. Remember, reality is the marker when comparing the two franchises and that is why there could never be a true ST vs SW mod as they just couldn't make it fair as one (like I said all along) is based on an ideology from one man (Gene Roddenberry) to show what OUR future could be and therefore base it in our reality and scientific knowledge to date. The other just settled on a fun romp in a far away galaxy with little basis in science but rather what would look good on the big screen.
Reality is not the marker. Suspension of Disbelief, is the marker. You keep this up I'm going to start calling you an idiot, because that's what you look like.
Incidentally, one of the reasons I dislike Star Trek is because of Rodenberry's ideologies permeating part of it. Because I disagree with Rodenberry on about a dozen or more different things. Like a utopian-type future. IMO, ain't gonna happen.
I'll also point out that an ST vs SW mod is more-or-less unrelated to the actual versus debate; the mod's purpose is to give people a fun time playing a game in a new way. Not to present an actual, unbiased conflict-simulation between the Empire and the Federation.
All the Star Trek series took some time to try and explain itself in some logical manner. Most of the time it's in a techno-babble that isn't in our scientific knowledge but that is part of the 'it's a TV show' thing. But they have tried to explain how the warp theory works and transporters, replicators, weapons systems, etc. They have also employed a real physicist for the show to help with the science portion to base it in reality.
I'm going to second Kitkun here. What Star Trek were you watching, as there's literally dozens of things that they concocted to fix the Problem of the Week that never saw the light of day again, even if they would have been immensely useful.
It also doesn't help that even the logical applications of their own technology fail rather hard in light of the explanations given; case in point- the TR-116 rifle. Has a transporter device to transport the bullet, and is intended to work in environments that phasers don't.......like electromagnetic-interference-heavy areas.....which transporters tend to have trouble with....I think you can see where this is going.
And, once again, I will reiterate the point that it was probably not a Good Idea for the ST writers to hire a physicist (or anyone, for that matter) to write up plausible (i.e. NOT POSSIBLE, BUT probably BELIEVABLE) explanations for them. While that's my personal opinion, I stand by it on the basis that leaving a device's workings unknown, but the effects and implications of the device very well known, is a much better way to run things.
So if you watch the series again, mainly Next Gen through Enterprise, you will pick up the science that they use and how it can be possible at times to be accomplished as opposed to Star Wars which... isn't!
So Star Wars has little-to-no basis in reality. BIG DEAL. Star Trek arguably has even less basis in reality, despite trying to be plausible. I'll also note that the most popular ST tech isn't possible.....we won't be making matter transporters or replicators any time in the foreseeable future. Not without going into the realm of Clarke-tech, AKA "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
For those who were counting, yes, that is indeed a grand total of ELEVEN facepalms. If he'd written more, there would probably have been an even greater amount.