Admiral Sith Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Star Wars lasers were more than 5 Trillion times powerful than Star Trek lasers. http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyraeth Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Well once you create the new unit (i.e: rather than just replacing the in-game ones with Star Trek ones) you could use the level editing capability (when we get it) to create new levels with those Trek units, and thus your Trek only missions or whatever. But see most people are going to want to see what happens with those other factions. So you'll need to do all the popular matchups. Borg vs. Rebels, Dominion vs. Empire, united Alpha/Beta Quadrants vs. the Empire, Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta quadrants vs. the Empire, etc. It'd be like doing a Marvel Vs. DC grudge match and only getting to see Superman vs. Hulk! You've got to eventually do the other stuff... No, no, no, you're missing the point. ;-). The idea is to setup all the sides and let players choose their matchups. Play the galactic conquest game with all the factions, or setup a skirmish between the Borg vs. Empire, Rebels vs. Borg, Federation vs. Empire, etc. Yeah, I really hope this MOD undergoes development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalBiscuit Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Balance > Lore. Nuff said. TB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
53rdCard Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I think that a SW vs. new battlestar galatica universe would be better, the ships would be of comparable size, the galatica type of ships don't use energy based weapons and even have nukes (at least not the new ones and I like the new series way better then the old) not to mention that if you also brought the cylons into it. But they dont have shields. Just my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenGoblin Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Star Wars lasers were more than 5 Trillion times powerful than Star Trek lasers. http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html Major races in Trek use phasers, polaron beams and disruptors, not lasers. Anyway, I've seen that site, I do agree that the Empire would likely be able to defeat most of the major powers in Trek (excluding God beings and super races like the Borg and Species 8472 of course), but then again the Star Wars galaxy dwellers have had FTL capability for THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of years, it's not surprising they would be able to overpower the Federation which has only existed for several hundred years. Although, I will say that I think the Federation is progressing at such a rapid rate (supported by fleeting glimpses of the future such as the 31st Century) it won't be long before they surpass their counterparts in the Star Wars galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhedd-5 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Where's the option to vote for, "I spend all day at work building ships for Star Trek Legacy. I play EaW to relax. Mixing the two would just confuse me." ? ^_^ Not to mention, everytime someone compares the Enterprise to a Star Destroyer, an Ewok dies. Please, think of the Ewoks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise Take that you stupid Ewoks! I was refering to this You are forgetting that in 'Our' galaxy, the Star Trek galaxy (I refer to 'ours' because Star Trek is set in our galaxy...etc.) lasers are COMPLETELY obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CondorFalco Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Where's the option to vote for, "I spend all day at work building ships for Star Trek Legacy. I play EaW to relax. Mixing the two would just confuse me." ? You work for Maddoc? Any idea when Legacy will be released? As for the Ewoks, I think they're cute, if a bit primative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkodeon Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise star destroyers are better than the Enterprise Take that you stupid Ewoks! I was refering to this What the hell? Maturity level = 0. ): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I hate ewoks, and did you even bother to see what we were talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistenTH Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Would be cool, but balancing it properly, given how polarised both sides are is going to be tough. Size wise the main Alpha Quadrant races aren't going to win any of the big SW ships. The most powerful Federation Ship atm the Fast-Battleship / Heavy 'Explorer' (hahaha, as if) Sovereign class only carries a crew of 1000 as opposed to an ISD's 27000. Although one thing is for sure is that SW fighters will not have a chance against ST beam weaponry, given that they track nearly perfectly and have no discernable travel time, unless they develop really heavy shields (maybe assault shuttles). By the way, I believe SW 'lasers' are actually a sort of directed plasma charge, and not 'lasers' per se. This would make them more similar to the plasma torpedoes employed by the Romulans, but with less firepower and more speed. One could also argue that the Small Trek ships have excellent field of fire coverage, and could just sit next to a large SW capital ship's blind spot and blast away with impunity. Also, there do seem to be heavy weapons such as Trilithium torpedoes that can destroy structures the size of a ISD (Voyager, Caretaker station.) Probably though, for a balanced game, the ST ships can be extremely hard to hit by the big SW ships, since they can't target the fast ships very well. So the smaller SW ships will have to do so, with better fields of fire, but they still don't move very fast. ST also has big capital ships, such as the Dominion Battlecruiser, other than Borg Cubes. And they have been taken down. Ah well, good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 According to the guides to each sides vessals the entire Federation fleet couldnt take out a single SW bomber. http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenGoblin Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 ^^ You mean the entire Federation fleet firing ALL at the same time on a single TIE-Bomber, they wouldn't be able to destroy it? The same unshielded, slow-moving, TIE-Bomber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistenTH Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 It says the the E-E can't take out an Acclamator, doesn't say anything about not being able to take out a bomber. At any rate if you want a meaningful playable matchup the sides will have to be balanced, or else no one would play a stomp for very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi3112 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 The Armada mods are already nicely balanced. The only thing that remains to be done is the speed of the ships as hyperdrive is rendered irrelevant by way EAW is. You may also want to devide the faser strips up into sections, and maybe have shields protect against torps a well. As for the fighters, the Armada mods also had quite a decent number of forward firing small ships. And don't forget that most SW ships also can hit nearly everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Star Wars: Slave-1 Main guns: 64000 GW (2 kilotons per shot, 480 rpm firing rate onscreen in AOTC for time-averaged power output rather than peak output) Missiles: 190 megatons (tail-launched missiles; seismic charge mines are roughly 12000 megatons) Sublight acceleration: 2500G Operational range: not stated (however, Obi-Wan's starfighter has an operational range of 150,000 light-years, and is probably similar). Shield heat dissipation: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has shield dissipation of 2 billion GW peak, and is probably similar) Reactor power: not stated (however, Amidala's personal yacht has power output of 7 billion GW max, and is probably similar) Max hyperspace speed: not stated (however, same-day flight from core to galactic outer-rim systems requires speeds in excess of 10 million c) Star Trek: Enterprise-D Main phasers: 3.6 GW Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical Sublight acceleration: 1000G Operational range: 2750 light-years Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6 Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6) Even this seemingly Trek-biased matchup seems to heavily favour the Empire, with Jango Fett's small patrol craft able to hit the Enterprise-D with much heavier firepower than it can dish out in return. Small wonder, then, that despite the simplicity and convenience of the lazy man's method, most Trekkies prefer to avoid it. Not to mention that several times in ST they state that it would take almost their entire Photon Torpedo load to destroy a Hollow astroid. Yet in Star Wars they are blasting Astroids left and right with their weakest guns. Not to mention Jango Fett destroyed astroids much bigger than him with a single seismic charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenGoblin Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Not to mention that several times in ST they state that it would take almost their entire Photon Torpedo load to destroy a Hollow astroid. Just to clairfy, it would take the entire torpedo supply of the E-D to destroy that asteroid. Yet in Star Wars they are blasting Astroids left and right with their weakest guns. Not to mention Jango Fett destroyed astroids much bigger than him with a single seismic charge. Weakest? I think you're pulling things from thin air on that one. The only time I can recall asteroids being destroyed were by Jango Fett's charges and Star Destroyer turbolaser batteries, neither of which I think are considered to be the Star Wars universes' weakest weapons. In fact I seem to remember TIE Bombers strafing asteroids in TESB and they seemed to hold together just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistenTH Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Sometimes, it's really difficult to compare. Simply because the people who created these universes did so to explore certain issues and ideas, not from a mathematical and engineering standpoint. Some ships or events or weapons are created just for the awe factor, and can be really weird. Case in point, look below. 1 'Light' Turbolaser: 1.25 x 10^16 W 1 'Heavy' Turbolaser: 8.4 x 10^20 W (Note that each shot from this turbolaser would require the perfect annihilation of 9000 kg of matter) 1 Galaxy Class Type X Phaser Strip: 4.17 x 10^15 W 1 Sovereign Class Type XII Phaser Strip: 7.08 x 10^15 W 1 Defiant Class Type X Phaser Strip: 7.00 x 10^16 W Strength of Defiant Class Pulse Phaser Cannons: Unknown However the following implies that its damage is extraordinarily high. Quote: "On her first active mission the Defiant faced a group of Dominion Attack Ships; these vessels had successfully withstood several minutes of fire fighting with a Galaxy class starship, but Defiant's phaser cannon cut through their shields within moments." - ditl.org (Canon, TV Series source) Depending on which ship as you take as a standard, if you take the defiant, which weighs in at an astounding 171 metres, it has ridiculous firepower that can annihilate ships much larger than itself. And about the Asteroid issue, the Intrepid-Class Voyager destroyed a space station (see the difference in sizes) with only 2 Tri-Cobalt devices. Throw in other movie facts such that 1 Tactical Officer controls all the weapons on a Federation Trek Ship, and that guns are operated by gunnery crews in SW (ROTS Episode 3, Falcon Turret ANH Episode 4), and it gets kinda difficult to make meaningful comparisons this way. So, as it's been said, gameplay balance > not properly thought out fantasy universe 'realism' (for both universes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I go with weakest guns, because they were chasing a ship that they really wanted, so wouldnt it make sense to save the energy for those guns? Not to mention that their is no reason to use heavy weapons when light ones will do the job just as well. And i agree with the above statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenGoblin Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I go with weakest guns, because they were chasing a ship that they really wanted, so wouldnt it make sense to save the energy for those guns? Not to mention that their is no reason to use heavy weapons when light ones will do the job just as well. And i agree with the above statement. When was this? The Star Destroyers were clearing the asteroid field so as not to suffer a collision, I see no reason to use weaker weapons here. I'm assuming you're talking about the TIE Bombers. To be honest if the Falcon had its shields down and a bomb landed on it, the strength of that explosive wouldn't have mattered, the ship would have been destroyed. It's a plot hole. Fact is you're making an assumption here with no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScorLibran Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Star Trek has its own equivalent of the Death Star: the Genesis device. They could just fly up to Coruscant or Yavin IV with it in a cloaked Bird of Prey. The planet's occupants wouldn't know anything about it until...they'd been transformed into base molecules. At least they could see the Death Star coming. As I see it... ST advantages: cloaking devices, transporters, better sensors, better firing arcs and much more advanced android technology. (ST's best: Data. SW's best: C3PO? R2D2?) SW advantages: the force, huge battleships, more powerful "normal" weapons, better/more diverse ground units and Jedis/Siths. It'd seem like a game balance nightmare, but awesome if someone could make it work. (Oh, and we all know James T. Kirk would lay the smack down on Vader and Obi-Wan.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 You forget that Star Wars weapons have a much larger range, in SW close range is 10km or more and in ST they have to be practically on top of eachother. Also SW ships have weapons scattered all over their holes, so they can cover more angles. Plus Transporters are unreliable and ST ships take years to go across one section of the galaxy while SW ships can Hyperspace across the entire galaxy in weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScorLibran Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Transporters have always been portrayed as safer than driving a car is for us today. In the history of Star Trek, there's been one transporter accident that I'm aware of. There have likely been others, but even so, in ST people are transporting with every breath, almost. Transporter technology is shown as being very reliable even from the earliest days. Do any ships in SW have dead spots in their firing arc? I thought I recalled my Victorys and Star Destroyers having to turn slightly to fire on a ship directly behind them. If so, that's an advantage for ST...their starships almost always have 360 degree weapon coverage. SW definitely has a range advantage. In ST they're always talking about how long it'd take to get from alpha quadrant to delta quadrant, while a SW ship could do it much, much faster. (This assumes the far, far away SW galaxy is something close to the size of the Milky Way). The most important tactical advantage of ST is cloaking devices. In SW I've never seen them portrayed as having anything like an invisible ship. How would they deal with that? Unfortunately, SW ships seem to ALWAYS have their shields up. Otherwise it'd be easy for a Romulan ship or a Klingon Bird of Prey to pull up alongside one, quietly transport troops over and start sabotaging systems. Why shoot at something that you can disable, or blow up from the inside? And if you use Data, then no Stormtroopers could stop him. Only a Sith Lord could do that, but even he couldn't beat the transporter. "Captain I am done here, and there is a strange, tall man wearing a black suit and helmet walking towards me. Please beam me up." (By the way...I'm starting to play devil's advocate here. I'm quite sure the hardware from the completely-fantasy Star Wars universe could seriously wipe out that of the mostly-based-on-current-science Star Trek universe. I just like defending/playing the underdog. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenGoblin Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 ^^^ Same on the devil's advocate thing. Plus Transporters are unreliable Actually they are pretty reliable, only things like shields and some kind of interference can screw them up (outside of mechanical failure: VERY RARE). I THINK I remember them breaking through shields with transporters by boosting the signal or diverting more power or something like that. Might be mistaken there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Sith Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Could Data really take on a thousand Stormtroopers? Also SW shields always have their shields up do to the huge number of micrometeorites traveling through space that can cause tremendous damage to a ship. Which brings me to the question of why the inferior ST technology can somehow protect them from micrometeorites without any form of protection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.