Nope - The advantage is that Star Wars ships are not really bound by any sort of even vaguely realistic physics, but we still have means to measure their output. Whereas Star Trek technical manuals lay out the ships capabilities in detail, and those capabilities are simply outclassed by the less reality-bound ships in Star Wars.
Star Trek ships may be based on reality, but they are still fucking stupid. In battle, they just stand still and shoot back and forth! Just because you are in 0G doesn't mean you can't move while shooting.
They used to, but that got better over the years. From about the Generations movie onward, ships got a lot more mobile in combat. Look at the ships in first contact during that opening battle, or some of the DS9 battles, all that sort of stuff, they're diving, ducking, weaving, generally acting like more mobile ships, rather than WW2 battleships.
Though there are a few battles in Deep Space Nine where two fleets just kind of drive right at each other in two big straight lines and start firing at about half a kilometer distant...
Not that I actually watched a lot of star trek, but I always figured when you reached the point of beam-based weaponry, any evasive maneuvers would be kind of pointless vs automated targeting systems.
Nonsense. All it means is that combat ranges start going out to either the limit of the beam's focus, like in Mass Effect, or multi-lightsecond distances, like what is usually the case in Star Wars. (The scene in Episode Three where all the ships were piled on top of each other was because the whole lot of them were caught between two sets of planetary shields.)
or multi-lightsecond distances, like what is usually the case in Star Wars.
Knowing for a few seconds that a beam of energy is going to come and vaporize you instantly, and there is nothing you can do about it, is a scary notion.
Nonsense. All it means is that combat ranges start going out to either the limit of the beam's focus, like in Mass Effect, or multi-lightsecond distances, like what is usually the case in Star Wars. (The scene in Episode Three where all the ships were piled on top of each other was because the whole lot of them were caught between two sets of planetary shields.)
Fair enough, suppose I need to do more wiki-binging into the combat of different scifi universes. Still kills me whenever I see a ship rolling around in a close range dogfight dodging lasers though- even if there is probably some in-universe explanation for it.
or multi-lightsecond distances, like what is usually the case in Star Wars.
Knowing for a few seconds that a beam of energy is going to come and vaporize you instantly, and there is nothing you can do about it, is a scary notion.
Well, fortunately, in the real world you'd never know because the information indicating a shot has been fired would arrive at the same instant as the shot itself. The range would make you more difficult to track, however.
In Star Wars, however, faster than light sensors are definitely a thing, letting smaller vessels move around incoming fire. It also helps that pretty much everything in Star Wars is aimed manually because, according to the first novelization, the jamming technology in a galaxy far far away is so absurd the mark one eyeball is pretty much the best aiming mechanism there is.
Nonsense. All it means is that combat ranges start going out to either the limit of the beam's focus, like in Mass Effect, or multi-lightsecond distances, like what is usually the case in Star Wars. (The scene in Episode Three where all the ships were piled on top of each other was because the whole lot of them were caught between two sets of planetary shields.)
Fair enough, suppose I need to do more wiki-binging into the combat of different scifi universes. Still kills me whenever I see a ship rolling around in a close range dogfight dodging lasers though- even if there is probably some in-universe explanation for it.
Last I recall, the visible portion of the blaster bolt isn't the killy part, it's basically a contrail caused by the firing mechanism being dragged behind an invisible light-speed pulse. There are several moments in the films where you can see the impact start before the projectile arrives.
Well, one limitation of Star Trek ships in combat is less about the ships' capabilities and more to do with special effects budgets. Star Wars had a much larger budget than Star Trek did, hence they could afford to produce the ground-breaking (for the time) space dogfights and such.
That said, there were scenes in The Next Generation that demonstrated that the targeting systems on your average Star Trek starship could pick off fighters, such as the vaunted X-Wings and Tie Fighters, with ease long before they could get close enough to do any damage.
Also, even in 0G, ships still have inertia. The Enterprise D from The Next Generation had a mass of 4.5 x 10^6 metric tonnes. It'll take a lot of force in order to get something that big to move. In fact, it would take 4.41 x 10^10 Newtons of force to get it to accelerate at 1G if I didn't mess up my calculations.
FWIW, I don't remember Star Destroyers or Super Star Destroyers ducking and weaving all that much either. They pretty much just moved slowly and relied on their turret-based guns to do all their damage. Only the fighters really did a lot of ducking and weaving in combat.
Of course, this is all moot as comparing different sci-fi universes is a pretty lame form of Gandalf Girthing IMHO. You may as well ask who was bigger, Gandalf or Dumbledore.
The targeting capabilities of the Galaxy-class is ultimately moot because Slave I, Boba Fett's little glorified shuttle, has more power output than the entire Galaxy-class, according to both franchise's tech literature. (TNG Technical Manual vs Star Wars ICS Episode 2)
The numbers are really just arbitrary figures for telling (or explaining after-the-fact) the story. Nothing more than the random digits on those Borderlands 2 guns for the most part.
Star Wars is absurd just on the premise of the Death Star; the first use of it power shown in A New Hope wowed me as a child, but when i watched Return of the Jedi and they had a size comparison with the moon of endor, I realize its danger to an entire planet is just absurd. It would had been more realistic to compare it outputting energy similar to the meteor that ended the dinoasurs, rather than blowing the whole planet up...
Star Destroyers can already do that sort of life-ending event with their main guns. The Death Star is intended primarily to go through planetary shields and prevent the sort of planetary sieges that occur around developed planets in Star Wars, thus cementing Imperial control over the Core Worlds; there is just a nice beneficial side effect that it can mass-scatter an earth-sized planet, which is real intimidating.
Is that even possible to achieve in physics with regards to the use of an intense beam of energy? I would say absolutely not, especially when taking into account molten cores, oceans and the sheer mass of a planet. (using Alderaan as an example)
Of course, if I really wanted to go nuts in this Gandalf Girthing, I could bring in the Vorlon Planet Killer from Babylon 5. Death Star class firepower in a package the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer (not even a Super Star Destroyer).
Star Trek ships could move more once budgets (and CGI, I imagine) made it possible to do epic battles on a TV budget. Also consider that fighters don't really exist in Trek, these are the equivalent of Star Destroyers and Mon Calarmari cruisers and Corellian corvettes doing battle. The Klingon Birds of Prey are probably closest to the Millenium Falcon, but they're mass produced for battle unlike the Falcon and have more firepower.
Ok, there are ships in that battle that are moving, but look how slow it is! What year is that from? 1997? That still isn't anywhere nearly as good as the battles in Jedi or New Hope and New Hope was released 20 years earlier.
Of course, if I really wanted to go nuts in this Gandalf Girthing, I could bring in the Vorlon Planet Killer from Babylon 5. Death Star class firepower in a package the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer (not even a Super Star Destroyer).
I were wondering when B5 would get it's chance to be, ah, "Grithed"
Yo Star Wars, I’m really happy for you. Imma Let you finish, but Stargate is the best science-fiction-franchise-starting-with-star of all time. OF ALL TIME.
It's popcorn Sci-Fi. At it's worst it's not any worse than Startreck: TNG could get, and at it's best it manages a few thoughtful episodes and some likable characters.
Comments
In Star Wars, however, faster than light sensors are definitely a thing, letting smaller vessels move around incoming fire. It also helps that pretty much everything in Star Wars is aimed manually because, according to the first novelization, the jamming technology in a galaxy far far away is so absurd the mark one eyeball is pretty much the best aiming mechanism there is. Last I recall, the visible portion of the blaster bolt isn't the killy part, it's basically a contrail caused by the firing mechanism being dragged behind an invisible light-speed pulse. There are several moments in the films where you can see the impact start before the projectile arrives.
That said, there were scenes in The Next Generation that demonstrated that the targeting systems on your average Star Trek starship could pick off fighters, such as the vaunted X-Wings and Tie Fighters, with ease long before they could get close enough to do any damage.
Also, even in 0G, ships still have inertia. The Enterprise D from The Next Generation had a mass of 4.5 x 10^6 metric tonnes. It'll take a lot of force in order to get something that big to move. In fact, it would take 4.41 x 10^10 Newtons of force to get it to accelerate at 1G if I didn't mess up my calculations.
FWIW, I don't remember Star Destroyers or Super Star Destroyers ducking and weaving all that much either. They pretty much just moved slowly and relied on their turret-based guns to do all their damage. Only the fighters really did a lot of ducking and weaving in combat.
Of course, this is all moot as comparing different sci-fi universes is a pretty lame form of Gandalf Girthing IMHO. You may as well ask who was bigger, Gandalf or Dumbledore.
Check it.
Of course, it doesn't really matter because how powerful a setting is doesn't really affect how good a story it is.
I agree about the BL2 guns, though.
Besides, it really puts things in a different perspective when you realize each shot from an x-wing's guns hits like a nuclear bomb.
Is that even possible to achieve in physics with regards to the use of an intense beam of energy? I would say absolutely not, especially when taking into account molten cores, oceans and the sheer mass of a planet. (using Alderaan as an example)
Star Trek ships could move more once budgets (and CGI, I imagine) made it possible to do epic battles on a TV budget. Also consider that fighters don't really exist in Trek, these are the equivalent of Star Destroyers and Mon Calarmari cruisers and Corellian corvettes doing battle. The Klingon Birds of Prey are probably closest to the Millenium Falcon, but they're mass produced for battle unlike the Falcon and have more firepower.
Not great art, but fun.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻