HK-42 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I would find the exact hyperspace concordiants of the Enterprise then jump there. The damages would be the price of one ship, evacuate all the crew, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As the Smash Bros. announcer says, "NO CONTEST!" For the Star Destroyer at least, Ion cannons FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I would find the exact hyperspace concordiants of the Enterprise then jump there. The damages would be the price of one ship, evacuate all the crew, etc. You are assuming the Enterprise wouldn't be able to detect the ISD inbound (which in theory it could considering they can detect transwarp conduits), and/or that the Enterprise wasn't in a gravity well (like in orbit of a planet), which would force the ISD out of hyperspace long before it could run into the Enterprise. Top that off the Enterprise can go to warp in a gravity well, while an ISD cannot enter hyperspace in one. You're grasping at straws... As the Smash Bros. announcer says, "NO CONTEST!" For the Star Destroyer at least, Ion cannons FTW! I don't believe Ion Canons would have much effect, that the shields would be up and Ion Canons operate on the same principle as a solar flare where charged particles disrupt electronic equipment. In fact considering the Enterprise has entered a Star's Corona (Descent Part II), and they even got a shuttlecraft in a seperate episode to accomplish the same feat. (something I doubt an ISD can copy) It looks like the Enterprise has the advantage yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanius Anglesmith Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 ISDs are combat ships. Their purpose is to intimidate and dominate. The Enterprise is a peace vessel. It's purpose is to explore strange new worlds. For that reason alone, an ISD > the Enterprise (Just in battle, though. I would still choose the Enterprise E over an ISD as my personal ship ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Star Destroyer. Enterprise: We come in peace. Star Destroyer: You may fire when ready. Yup. Star Destroyer. No contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Exhibit A: Enterprise E, fully upgraded. Advantages: -Superior manueverability -Multiphasic phasers -Adaptive Multiphasic Shields -A plethora of backup systems and failsafes -Great system power transfer abilities -Warp Core -Quantum and Photon Torpedos -In upgraded status: deployable armor, croniton torpedos, transphasic torpedos, slipstream warp drive (after all, warp 10 = infinite velocity), cloaking technology, section 31 adaptations Yeah I think the Enterprise E would win. Armor and size is irrelevent. Star trek technology is far more adaptable than star wars technology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I can't believe I read that whole memo. Where did those numbers come from? :x I thought Star Wars lasers weren't real laser at all, but plasma or somesuch. Something to do with ionizing gases and stuff. Why else are they mining tibanna gas on Bespin? How will the Enterprise handle having huge chunks of plasma thrown at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedHawke Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Power Output, a Star Destroyer's main reactor is impressive in size, but it appears it is fusion based, Sorry Garfield but Star Wars is an Ion powered universe... Powering the 1.6 kilometer-long craft is nothing short of a miniature sun -- a solar ionization reactor bulges from the ventral spine, using its raging fires to fuel the giant warship. Link [scotty]It is Ion Power Laddie...[/scotty] and trumps Trek in every way concerning power and power generation... as evidenced below. Heck, even the spindly little TIE fighters are Ion powered (TIE stands for Twin Ion Engines). I don't believe Ion Canons would have much effect, that the shields would be up and Ion Canons operate on the same principle as a solar flare where charged particles disrupt electronic equipment. Ion cannons are specifically meant to overload systems under power... shields are the most vulnerable to the effects of Ion weapons. They are meant to take a ship and crew intact, or reduce a city/continent back to the stone age. Some of the statements you make as to Trek 'advantages' are not really such... Feel free to hide in that suns corona... at your own peril because that Star Destroyer can and will wait you out and/or simply start pummeling you from afar. There are things you can do but it would be folly to do in combat against a larger and more powerful opponent. You would be 'putting your back to the sea' so to speak, and power that would have gone to your defense, or better yet your offense, would instead be spent on keeping yourself alive from the hostile environment, power you don't have to spare against an ISD. Real life physics are all fine and good but when you enter the realms of super science you are using certain assumptions that while they are factual as we know them they might not be actually viable with the technology viewed. I have seen people attempt to use real physics to explain things seen on various Sci-Fi and some of them are skewed in that they analyze using a flawed system of 'assumptions' to begin with and these 'assumptions' skews their data even further, usually toward what they are favoring. Armor and size is irrelevent. Star trek technology is far more adaptable than star wars technology... Ahem! *Clears throat* Adaptable does not mean better or more powerful though. And Armor and Size do play a big role in a battle between any ships but the key in any sci-fi ship battle is power and Trek is woefully lacking in power generation. Exhibit A: Scotty in the classic episode Spock's Brain indicated in no uncertain terms that Ion power and technology is far, far beyond their own levels. "Either its a Nuclear pile a thousand miles across... or its Ion Power!" ~ Mr. Scott TNG Trek technology is more advanced but not that much different that the Classic Trek tech was, same power systems and drive systems, weapons etc. while more damaging and stronger they aren't up to that level of tech. Yes this includes the Romulan Warbird as its systems aren't that stable so the tech hasn't been perfected to its fullest extents possible. Trek is a young universe, with much to learn, I'm certain that given a few thousand years the match up would be far more even. Being it is out of the mouth of Mr. Scott himself (written by Gene himself) the case for Matter/Anti-Matter/Nuclear-Fusion powered Star Trek trumping Ion Powered Star Wars is a hard one to sell. Show spoiler (hidden content - requires Javascript to show) Besides this is all irrelevant, my Shadow Cruiser would phase out of Hyperspace and cut both the ships in half and then phase back again with a shrill scream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Down Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Star Destroyer for sure! ''I pity da USS Enterprise!'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 There weren't any holodecks on the Enterprise NCC-1701, or Enterprise A, nor Enterprise B.Neither does the SD. Those old types sound less like pleasure yachts and more like real warships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I read the ISD vs. Enterprise D comparison and quite frankly, 70 TRILLION GW shield heat dissipation is just outrageous to the ISD. At least if that were true, then it doesn't seem remotely to be accurate compared to what is seen on screen or from the novels. I think it would be better to compare the attributes from what each could do in the movies, books, and series. Destroying a planet: It was said that the Death Star carried a Super Laser that was equaled over half the star fleet. That represents thousands of star destroyers. Star destroyers must not be so powerful. In one Star Trek DS9 episode, The Die is Cast, twenty starships were able to wipe out an entire planet... seven hours of bombardments to destroy everything to the mantle. Those twenty ships combined probably were as massive as two destroyers at maximum. In a future episode 'Broken Link,' even one starship (USS Defiant) could have done the same thing. The second is likely not as reliable as the 20 ships, but that shows just how dangerous a SINGLE starship could be to an entire world. Causing a supernova: Star Trek TNG and DS9 has been shown to do this very easily. The Sun Crusher was the only ship in SW that could do this... and it was EXPENSIVE as hell. Explosives: Photon and Quantum torpedoes are comparable to nuclear weapons while proton and concussion missiles are barely better than TNT. Star Trek ships beats out Star Wars in this regard alone. Phasers: are much more powerful than blasters at the small scale level. A phaser can vaporize where the only thing in SW that could do that were disruptors... only six shots per power cell. Blaster shots from a starship don't have that much destructive energy either compared to a phaser when it comes to penetrating a ship's armour or planet's surface. Propulsion: Star Wars has only been able to achieve lightspeed... no idea how their galaxy could be that small. Of course, that ISD vs. Enterprise states that 'rough calculations' of the ISD could be 100,000,000 times that... BASED ON WHAT? More likely that hyperspace is like a series of wormholes rather than anything else. ISD maximum speed is never really explained properly at all. Star Trek ships can achieve speeds thousands of times faster than light at warp. Star Trek ships at impulse also can reach up to 1/4 the speed of light compared to a very slow maximum speed achieved by a Star Destroyer. Shields: Star Trek beats out Star Wars in this category in almost every way. A fighter-sized ship could ram into the bridge of a Super Star destroyer, but Star Trek shields could withstand BOTH physical and energy to a much greater degree... for instance, the impact of photon torpedos. I can't imagine an ISD being able to withstand an attack by the USS Defiant... a much smaller ship in my perception. In all: The numbers of both comparisons can't really be measured. The application of a weapon upon a planet's surface, or punishment by a physical impact are all that can really be trusted. Of course, it's all just fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Sorry Garfield but Star Wars is an Ion powered universe... [scotty]It is Ion Power Laddie...[/scotty] and trumps Trek in every way concerning power and power generation... as evidenced below. Being it is out of the mouth of Mr. Scott himself (written by Gene himself) the case for Matter/Anti-Matter/Nuclear-Fusion powered Star Trek trumping Ion Powered Star Wars is a hard one to sell. With all due respect, I would hardly consider that one line from the WORST Star Trek episode ever created... (and most of the original episodes were terrible, I might add) ...to trump everything. You know that if that ONE line were just a continuity mistake, that your whole justification has nothing to stand on? It's all fiction, but just for the sake of this... I would hardly consider anything in the Original series to stand up to the Star Wars universe. I don't even consider the original series to be in the same category as TNG, DS9, and Voyager. The original Enterprise would break apart under its own mass before it even approached a Star Destroyer. The Enterprise D, Defiant, and Voyager have all demonstrated that they are VERY much beyond the original and Star Wars universe. Where the Star Destroyer may have a miniature sun, or ion power... (What IS that anyway?) The Enterprise D uses anti-matter and that is WAY beyond atomic energy. Romulan Warbirds are powered by artificial singularities, which are miniature neutron stars. Fusion reactors are essentially the same thing as the energy within a star in that solar ionization reactor. Holographic technology and cloaking devices are also much more advanced in Star Trek. If a Star Destroyer can't fly into a star, then it's a little hard to explain how it can withstand more punishment for its size than a Star Trek ship that has so much weaker shields. A ship that could cut through a planet's mantel with its phasers likely could outclass turbolasers which can't really do that. Quite frankly, DS9, TNG, and Voyager take the prize because they actually explain more in detail exactly what their power sources are. Hypermatter, hyperspace, the Force, and Ion energy do not really get explained in SW. (The artificial singularity is one in TNG that isn't either) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I say that the Star Destroyer would win. Why? Though Star Wars may be 'a long time ago,' it's still a heckuva more advanced then the Enterprise, as cool as it may be. The Star Destroyer's firepower is absolutley amazing and huge in size, the Enterprise....big gun yes, but in the end, ti would not be able to hold it's own. Oh, that and Earth cannot have as many Enterprises as the Empire has Star Destroyers. Empire has tech, guns, manpower, and numbers. Enterprise, funny uniforms, oldie tech, and Patrick Stewart. With that combination, who would win?? Eh? Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Sorry Garfield but Star Wars is an Ion powered universe... You get Ions from Plasma which means Nuclear Fusion, take a look at what powers our Sun sometime. [scotty]It is Ion Power Laddie...[/scotty] and trumps Trek in every way concerning power and power generation... as evidenced below. Heck, even the spindly little TIE fighters are Ion powered (TIE stands for Twin Ion Engines). First, which episode, second TIE Fighters have an Ion Drive, to be frank you can create Ions with an electric toaster. Btw, the Impulse Engines exhaust is Ions, hence an Ion Drive... Ion cannons are specifically meant to overload systems under power... shields are the most vulnerable to the effects of Ion weapons. They are meant to take a ship and crew intact, or reduce a city/continent back to the stone age. Not necessarily true, it depends how the shields protect the ship, fact is there was an episode where the Enterprise D was actually managing to move a moon (while it wasn't being attacked by an alien lifeform at the same time). Some of the statements you make as to Trek 'advantages' are not really such... Feel free to hide in that suns corona... at your own peril because that Star Destroyer can and will wait you out and/or simply start pummeling you from afar. There are things you can do but it would be folly to do in combat against a larger and more powerful opponent. You would be 'putting your back to the sea' so to speak, and power that would have gone to your defense, or better yet your offense, would instead be spent on keeping yourself alive from the hostile environment, power you don't have to spare against an ISD. Actually the solution is also found in Descent Part II, when the Enterprise triggered a solar eruption to destroy the enemy ship. Fact is though Turbolasers couldn't get an accurate shot if the weapons even had any effect in that kind of environment. Real life physics are all fine and good but when you enter the realms of super science you are using certain assumptions that while they are factual as we know them they might not be actually viable with the technology viewed. I have seen people attempt to use real physics to explain things seen on various Sci-Fi and some of them are skewed in that they analyze using a flawed system of 'assumptions' to begin with and these 'assumptions' skews their data even further, usually toward what they are favoring. Well the problem with your statement is that Gene Roddenberry and his successors tried to base as much as they could off of real world physics. E=mc^2 therefore applies which is literally the amount of energy the Enterprise has at it's disposal. The Star Destroyer's power supply is from Nuclear Fusion, which we see plasma and ions (hence also where the power for the Turbolasers are generated). An article on Antimatter, that would be of interest. The Enterprise uses a combination of Deuterium (an actual Isotope of Hydrogen), and Anti-Deuterium in combination with Dilithium crystals to focus the reaction and heightens the percentage of energy collected. In fact we're looking at an order of magnitude of 10^4 power here, which quite frankly makes an ISD look like a joke. Ahem! *Clears throat* Adaptable does not mean better or more powerful though. And Armor and Size do play a big role in a battle between any ships but the key in any sci-fi ship battle is power and Trek is woefully lacking in power generation. I don't think so... The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²), or the rough equivalent of 47 megatons of TNT. For comparison, Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, reacted an estimated yield of 50 Megatons, which required the use of hundreds of kilograms of fissile material (Uranium/Plutonium).--wikipedia Exhibit A: Scotty in the classic episode Spock's Brain indicated in no uncertain terms that Ion power and technology is far, far beyond their own levels. "Either its a Nuclear pile a thousand miles across... or its Ion Power!" ~ Mr. Scott Okay now I know which episode you're referring to, I'm going to be blunt and point out that at the time there wasn't as much known about the laws of physics as is known today. Consider this, we have Ion power today, it's called Ion propulsion which isn't powerful at all. This was contradicted in later episodes seen in Star Trek the Next Generation (Descent: Part II when the ship entered the corona of a star where it would be under enormous ion bombardment (along with various forms of radiation and heat). Another contradiction was a Trek episode involving the Doomsday Device which used Pure Antiprotons as a weapon (antimatter) and the Enterprise still survived, note in that episode they point out the Impulse Engines are Fusion reactors. TNG Trek technology is more advanced but not that much different that the Classic Trek tech was, same power systems and drive systems, weapons etc. while more damaging and stronger they aren't up to that level of tech. Yes this includes the Romulan Warbird as its systems aren't that stable so the tech hasn't been perfected to its fullest extents possible. Trek is a young universe, with much to learn, I'm certain that given a few thousand years the match up would be far more even. It was also refined as we knew more about real life physics, Ion Drive didn't exist then, it does now. Being it is out of the mouth of Mr. Scott himself (written by Gene himself) the case for Matter/Anti-Matter/Nuclear-Fusion powered Star Trek trumping Ion Powered Star Wars is a hard one to sell. I think I'd go off the TNG Technical Manual that was partially written by Mr. Roddenberry's successor Rick Berman, and the Physics of Star Trek. Gene wasn't a physicist, and the TNG writing staff actually had physicists contributing to the episodes. Besides this is all irrelevant, my Shadow Cruiser would phase out of Hyperspace and cut both the ships in half and then phase back again with a shrill scream! Hyperdrives don't work in a mass shadow... The only Advantage the Star Destroyer has is its shear bulk, and the fact that it's about as obese as Jabba the Hutt compared to the Enterprise is the only thing the ISD has going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The one with the more rabid fanbase wins. Mmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The one with the more rabid fanbase wins. I'd say the one that you actually can compare with. Star Wars doesn't really explain any of how any of the technology works. They have LIGHTSABERS for god's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I'd say the one that you actually can compare with. Star Wars doesn't really explain any of how any of the technology works. They have LIGHTSABERS for god's sake! This is true. Putting together scientific information with a universe with the Force, Lightsabers, etc is difficult. And, well, so is a universe where warp drives and "teleportation" exist. For the most part all of this scientific supposition is BS Oh god, I'm going to be destroyed by trekkies and wookies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 And, well, so is a universe where warp drives and "teleportation" exist. For the most part all of this scientific supposition is BS It isn't as far off as you think, theoretically warp drive would work if we could come up with a way to warp space/time. As for transporters, they are closer to reality than you think (they have a long way to go). I'll let you search for the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 they are closer to reality than you think (they have a long way to go)lolwut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 It isn't as far off as you think, theoretically warp drive would work if we could come up with a way to warp space/time. As for transporters, they are closer to reality than you think (they have a long way to go). I'll let you search for the articles. Maybe transporters could eventually become reality, but the odds of being able to decompile life and rebuild it in working order would be difficult... more like impossible. You probably could transport matter, but it would likely would arrive at its destination as a very fine powder or liquid. The whole transporters thing was just a means for star trek to find a cheap way to move people to and fro without expensive shuttle scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Maybe transporters could eventually become reality, but the odds of being able to decompile life and rebuild it in working order would be difficult... more like impossible. You probably could transport matter, but it would likely would arrive at its destination as a very fine powder or liquid. The whole transporters thing was just a means for star trek to find a cheap way to move people to and fro without expensive shuttle scenes. That's what I mean about them having a long way to go, rudimentry transporter technology does currently exist though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Ok, here's how it is. Anyone that disagrees with me is wrong. In a straight up blow for blow battle, the ISD leaves little chunks with federation writing on them floating in space. But then that's not how the Star Trek ship would fight. Enterprise has far more advanced sensors, and more pinpoint targeting. They can target the bridge for example and completely disable the ISD. Because the Enterprise is more for exploration, it is geared up with sensors that a war ship wouldn't have. The ISD uses manually aimed turrets(as seen in the movies) as it's main guns. The ISD also must have an area that you can fly in and be within it's outer shields(as seen by the X-wings taking out the shield generators, and an a-wing flying through the bridge). So a likely scenario would be as follows. Enterprise rolls up on the ISD. tries to say hi, and ISD powers up weapons. Enterprise raises shields takes a couple glancing blows that do a lot of damage, and they scram. Enterprise analyzes all of the data gathered from the first battle, and comes up with a plan. They rig a shuttlecraft to detonate it's warp core on impact with the ISD's bridge. Set it's autopilot, and eat popcorn while watching it on screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedHawke Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Garfiled... Sorry but Trek Canon would indicate otherwise, as I proved... note nowhere in my post replying to your misconceptions did I state Trek would lose the fight, I did state that power generation would be a key factor and that you were seriously misinformed about the power sources Star Wars had, and just how some of your stated Trek "advantages" were quite awful things to try in a real space battle. Trek does not out tech Star Wars... to try and prove so is preposterous. One galaxy is thousands (or more) years old with Tech that has been continued and perfected over that time, the other is not, while Trek has some nice toys, they will need a few thousand years to catch up. And your posting "I don't think so..." in response to my statements of power being a big factor in a space battle proves to me you have no clue about the subject of space combat, I'll elaborate on my statement... A battle between space ships using energy weapons is all about power generation, maneuverability and armor are factors sure as well as the crews on said ships, but it is a simple matter of your weapons (fed by your power supplies) overwhelming your opponents shield/defensive systems (fed by their power supplies) and this is before their weapons overwhelm your shield systems of course. In this kind of fight power is everything... Power enables you to move, attack, and defend yourself and in this particular match up the Trek ship is doomed unless it can use its smaller size to keep itself in the aft quadrant of the ISD (where there are less weapons). Either way though no matter the torpedoes or phasers (Trek designs while pretty are not very functional to the kind of combat an ISD is made for) you simply can't get enough weapons/power to bear on the ISD to seriously damage it. The key to defeating an ISD is equal powered broadsides of massive amounts of energy weaponry overwhelming the shields and armor and damaging critical systems, the Rebel/New Republic MC-80 (for example) can do this while the Enterprise and her sister ships simply cannot. You would be a mosquito attacking an elephant, yes Quantum/Photon Torpedoes are hefty anti-matter weapons but can't be delivered in a significant enough quantity to deal any sort of real death blow to the ISD, add to that the abysmal arrangements of the Phaser banks/arrays on the typical federation ship allow for no real broadside potentials. You simply can't put enough on target to get the job done... though the aforementioned 'elephant' will likely not be able to swat you either if you are good at maneuvering. Lastly your statements of "we have Ion power now" is a type of Straw Man argument if I'm not mistaken... sure we can have touched upon said tech but we'll need to come back after 5 thousand or so years and then we'll talk about how powerful it gets in that time. Star wars is an old universe, Trek is a young one, this is a factor as well in any fight between the two and it is also a factor when you try and analyse things. The laws of physics and such things can and do change as our understanding of the universe expands but you need to be careful when analyzing things, you analysis favors Trek for that is the galaxy you personally like most, so you are determined to back your assumptions about how great it is with any and all data you can, even when you go against the Canon of the universe itself to do so. To be fair here I'll state my favorite galaxy, which is Babylon 5, so I am not playing favorites to Star Wars here... I find the galaxy of both Trek and Wars to be fun and they have their places in my heart, but they don't enlist the zeal in me you obviously have for Trek. In the end though I would still defer to the canon of the universe even though I may not personally like it or agree with it. The statements about Ion power being so much more advanced in Trek is canon. The Doomsday Machine used a beam of pure anti-proton, yes... and it sliced planets up to feed the machine, it was also armored in solid neutronium, and was from another galaxy whose obvious tech levels were beyond those of Trek, but it went up against Kirk and we all know how awesome he is (waits for someone to post that Kirk awesome pic). The Doomsday Machine was also the coolest looking ice cream cone I have ever seen. With all due respect, I would hardly consider that one line from the WORST Star Trek episode ever created... (and most of the original episodes were terrible, I might add) ...to trump everything. You know that if that ONE line were just a continuity mistake, that your whole justification has nothing to stand on? With all due respect back, your 'opinion' is clouding the facts here, nor is it only one line either. You may not personally like classic Trek yourself and that's ok, but Gene wrote it and we have to accept it, for it is canon. I'm still on the fence about the whole Midichlorians in Star Wars myself, but it is now canon for Star Wars... my liking it is not a factor, simple as that. The ISD also must have an area that you can fly in and be within it's outer shields(as seen by the X-wings taking out the shield generators, and an a-wing flying through the bridge). So a likely scenario would be as follows. There is no 'fly under' zone in the shields. The shields of the Executor had been battered down by Mon Cal fire, enough that before they could refresh them, the X-Wings Torpedoes were able to hit the mark and destroy one of the shield generators. "Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!" wasn't an order given to a single group of snub-fighters I assure you. The Mon Cals did the work there to give that fighter its shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Too bad ILM didn't include a shot of the Mon Cal Star Cruisers opening up on the Executor before the fighter attack. It would have made more sense. I do agree with DY, though. Spock's Brain was a terrible episode. TOS had some very good ones, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceAlex Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Hmm, shouldn't this be moved over to Kavar's. It seems to be getting quite serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.