View Full Version : Imperial Star Destroyer v Battlestar
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:45 PM
Nerd alert.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2moxeee.jpg http://i33.tinypic.com/23ll3x2.jpg
The whole ISD v Enterprise thing has been done to death already, but that whole comparison reeks of fail.
This is far more interesting, because unlike Star Trek Federation starships, to whom the role as battleship is secondary at best, both the ISDs and the battlestars are big-ass carrier/dreadnaughts (1600m for the star destroyer, 1400m for the battlestar) with a fuckload of guns and a complement of fighter-bombers.
Both are armed to the teeth, heavily armoured, and not to be trifled with.
But if a fully operational Chimaera were to happen upon a fully operational Pegasus, and it came to blows, who would win?
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 06:47 PM
I'd ask if a nuke could penetrate the ISD shields, but for fucks sake a x-wing could do it.
I'd say battlestar for the win.
Pegasus is goin' down... not to say it wouldn't be quite the battle, but the Star Destroyer's shields would deflect every incoming weapon fired at it, while at the same time its turbolaser bursts would burn through the hull in no time
on the other hand, the Vipers would mop the floor with the TIE fighters
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:51 PM
I am not enough of a geek to know how many vipers a battlestar usually carries; I am geek enough to know that an impstar carries six squadrons of TIEs, equalling 72 craft, plus assorted gunships and blastboats.
I think the battle would be decided by the fighter complements.
Claydon
10-07-2008, 06:53 PM
i got 2 credits on an Imperial Star Destroyer.
I'd ask if a nuke could penetrate the ISD shields, but for fucks sake a x-wing could do it.
I'd say battlestar for the win.
a single XWing could never penetrate the shields of a Star Destroyer... people are duped into thinking one could because a couple AWings destroy the Executor's 'shield generator'(which is really nothing of the sort, but that's another discussion for another day)... keep in mind that the ship was being pummelled by basically every rebel ship in the entire fleet, which had the effect of overwhelming the ship's shields, allowing it to be destroyed by a single lucky AWing
duh
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 06:53 PM
Super star destroyer would reign over all.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 06:54 PM
The Star Destroyer would just pummel Pegasus to space dust with its turbo lasers. The strength of the Star Destroyers shields is such that any non Star Wars ship would probably be unable to penetrate it's shields.
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 06:54 PM
a single XWing could never penetrate the shields of a Star Destroyer... people are duped into thinking one could because a couple AWings destroy the Executor's 'shield generator'(which is really nothing of the sort, but that's another discussion for another day)... keep in mind that the ship was being pummelled by basically every rebel ship in the entire fleet, which had the effect of overwhelming the ship's shields, allowing it to be destroyed by a single lucky AWing
duh
Ok you win the geek off.....jesus.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Pegasus is goin' down... not to say it wouldn't be quite the battle, but the Star Destroyer's shields would deflect every incoming weapon fired at it, while at the same time its turbolaser bursts would burn through the hull in no time
on the other hand, the Vipers would mop the floor with the TIE fighters
Also, ion cannons. The battlestar would be drifting with shorted-out circuits in no time.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Ok you win the geek off.....jesus.
It's precisely what I would have said. I did shed a tear at the loss of my beloved Executor.
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 06:56 PM
Ok fuck it, Borg cube vs. ISD
I am not enough of a geek to know how many vipers a battlestar usually carries; I am geek enough to know that an impstar carries six squadrons of TIEs, equalling 72 craft, plus assorted gunships and blastboats.
I think the battle would be decided by the fighter complements.
best estimates show Pegasus' fighter compliment at somewhere between 120 and 150 Vipers
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 06:57 PM
Also, ion cannons. The battlestar would be drifting with shorted-out circuits in no time.
Interdictors could be deployed to stop the Pegasus from jumping away.
Ok you win the geek off.....jesus.
*bows*
Also, ion cannons. The battlestar would be drifting with shorted-out circuits in no time.
this is also true, I hadn't considered that
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:58 PM
best estimates show Pegasus' fighter compliment at somewhere between 120 and 150 Vipers
Against bog-standard TIE Fighters, Vipers win. Against Interceptors and Advanceds, not so sure. How many warheads does a Viper carry?
Mustard
10-07-2008, 06:58 PM
Death Star is clearly the winner.
It can blow up planets.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:59 PM
Interdictors could be deployed to stop the Pegasus from jumping away.
Yeah, but they're not being discussed here. It's one ship against another.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 06:59 PM
Ok fuck it, Borg cube vs. ISD
Better battle would be Borg cube v Cylon basestar.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Death Star is clearly the winner.
It can blow up planets.
NO!
Really?
Claydon
10-07-2008, 07:00 PM
best estimates show Pegasus' fighter compliment at somewhere between 120 and 150 Vipers
ok....face, you have crossed over into Supreme geekdom.
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Better battle would be Borg cube v Cylon basestar.
I mean besides an near endless supply of cylon ships...what is the basestar packing?
Hanover Fist
10-07-2008, 07:01 PM
Against bog-standard TIE Fighters, Vipers win. Against Interceptors and Advanceds, not so sure. How many warheads does a Viper carry?
http://www.angelfire.com/hero/bsprometheus/equip.html
Viper RX-7 Modified Mk.1: The Prometheus is the first ship to be issued a battalion of RX-7's, a modified version of the Mk.1 s. The RX-7 weighs approximately 13,104 kg and is 9.47 meters long. The Mk.1 has a hybrid power system of tylium and fusion reactors and has three Ion engines, whereas the RX-7 has three fusion reactors with a more efficient fuel input and output along with a advanced exhaust system (making the Tylium system unnecessary), and has two ion engines instead of the three on the Mk.1, yet it still yields the same thrust capabilities. The engines run on liquid mercury and unlike the Mk.1, which has the tanks on the outside of the hull, the RX-7 has two internal tanks to fuel the engines. The RX-7 has a speed of 82.5m/s^2 in space and approxamitly 2,200 kph in atmosphere. The RX-7 however still has the same Turbo capabilities that the Mk.1 had in which it releases Solonite plasma in the ion stream behind the engines, igniting it and making the RX-7's max speed 132.25 m/s2 in space and over Mach-3 in standard atmosphere. The ship also has the capability to leave the cockpit in a state of suspended animation while the pilot is asleep on long missions in order to conserve oxygen. The ship can contain life for 13 days and in the case of incredible damage the whole cockpit ejects and can sustain life for 3 days. The ship is armed with two 30mm Laser Torpedo guns on the inside of both the wings with around 300 torpedos per side and a hull plating of 4.2 centimeters of reinforced armor.
Viper RX-T: The RX-T is in the same class as the Viper but is a heavier fighter ship. The main differences is that the hull plating on the ship is 6 centimeters instead of 4.5, and that due to its larger mass it has a max speed of 73.5 m/s^2 in space and 1451 kph in atmosphere. It is less manuverable and does not have the jump capability. However, due to its thicker hull plating it can stand to take more hits and it has the addition of 6 solonite missiles and only one Laser Torpedo Gun located in the center under the nose of the ship.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:01 PM
I mean besides an near endless supply of cylon ships...what is the basestar packing?
As if a shitload of Raiders wasn't enough, doesn't it have nukes on board?
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Damn leave it to hanover to take this to a whole other level.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Ok fuck it, Borg cube vs. ISD
I know this is going to sound incredibly nerdy but i'm going to do it anyway:
Have you actually read the stats comparing Star Wars and Star Trek ships?
Star Wars weapons are so powerful they would utterly overwhelm any shield in the Star Trek universe.
Dont take my word for it. Look over the stats yourself:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
The problem with anything vs. a Star Destroyer is it's probably the best developed true warship of sci-fi with shields. Stargate ships aren't explained in enough detail, Star Trek Federation ships are basically all science vessels, Battlestar Galactica are without shields, it's a pure unadulterated warship with the higher level of sci-fi tech.
Mustard
10-07-2008, 07:05 PM
NO!
Really?
I KNOW!!! It really is an amazing thing...
Nature's Folly
10-07-2008, 07:08 PM
I know this is going to sound incredibly nerdy but i'm going to do it anyway:
Have you actually read the stats comparing Star Wars and Star Trek ships?
Star Wars weapons are so powerful they would utterly overwhelm any shield in the Star Trek universe.
Dont take my word for it. Look over the stats yourself:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
Ok but the argument could be said, that since SW came out after ST, then they could just ramp up what they figured those numbers to be and be done with it. HAHA you were first, So we will just be a billion trillion times better since you're locked in.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:09 PM
Ok but the argument could be said, that since SW came out after ST, then they could just ramp up what they figured those numbers to be and be done with it. HAHA you were first, So we will just be a billion trillion times better since you're locked in.
That still doesnt change the fictional balance of power.
Haha this is getting into some weird shit.
ok....face, you have crossed over into Supreme geekdom.
I looked it up, get over yourself
Against bog-standard TIE Fighters, Vipers win. Against Interceptors and Advanceds, not so sure. How many warheads does a Viper carry?
I don't know, but probably 4-6 or so... but TIEs fly like airplanes, while Vipers can flip end over end, maintain angular momentum regardless of orientation, and have virtually no end to their maneuverability... this tells me that they would dominate any TIE fighters thrown at them
the only unknown factor is speed, how much faster is one than the other? If the TIEs are faster enough, then the increased maneuverability becomes almost moot
As if a shitload of Raiders wasn't enough, doesn't it have nukes on board?
so does a Battlestar
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:14 PM
I know this is going to sound incredibly nerdy but i'm going to do it anyway:
Have you actually read the stats comparing Star Wars and Star Trek ships?
Star Wars weapons are so powerful they would utterly overwhelm any shield in the Star Trek universe.
Dont take my word for it. Look over the stats yourself:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html
Haha nice. Even the tiny little Slave I would own the Enterprise-D...
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:17 PM
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/Battle_for_the_Galaxy_by_FooDogTenc.jpg
And i'm spent.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:19 PM
Yeah, throw Super Star Destroyers and Death Stars into the mix, and it all becomes incredibly moot.
Seriously, what is the Federations 'warship'? The Defiant? The Federation was about science, so even ignoring the obviously inferior by technical manual stats weapons, they aren't built to fight in the first place.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:21 PM
Star Trek ships seems to have a problem with targeting
DRm0RfUGkS4
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:22 PM
Seriously, what is the Federations 'warship'? The Defiant? The Federation was about science, so even ignoring the obviously inferior by technical manual stats weapons, they aren't built to fight in the first place.
As was said in the original post...
unlike Star Trek Federation starships, to whom the role as battleship is secondary at best, both the ISDs and the battlestars are big-ass carrier/dreadnaughts (1600m for the star destroyer, 1400m for the battlestar) with a fuckload of guns and a complement of fighter-bombers.
Archangel
10-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Where are The GWD and Black_Sun when you need them?
Star Trek ships seems to have a problem with targeting
DRm0RfUGkS4
Most Star Trek ships have 'deflector' shields along with tried-and-true hardcore shields that just stop weapons. I believe you're meant to assume those deflectors deflect weaponsfire.
As was said in the original post...
Right. But the Battlestar doesn't have energy shields, as already said, so they'd get fucked in about 10 seconds (one Ion Cannon shot and the Impstar can do whatever it wants). There simply isn't any other major sci-fi ship which is both built for war and has these energy shields.
What, a Klingon Warbird maybe?
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:29 PM
Most Star Trek ships have 'deflector' shields along with tried-and-true hardcore shields that just stop weapons. I believe you're meant to assume those deflectors deflect weaponsfire.
Deflector shields dont cause weapons to miss. They simply absorb the impact, therefore 'deflecting' the damage from the hull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shields_(Star_Trek)
Deflector shields dont cause weapons to miss. They simply absorb the impact, therefore 'deflecting' the damage from the hull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shields_(Star_Trek)
I stand corrected.
Kerjack
10-07-2008, 07:35 PM
Deflector shields dont cause weapons to miss. They simply absorb the impact, therefore 'deflecting' the damage from the hull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shields_(Star_Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shields_%28Star_Trek))
But does that mean they don't have anything that does just that? If this is our future you'd think they would carry on the tradition of good electronic countermeasures, not just armor and weapons.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:36 PM
I stand corrected.
Sci-Fi terminology can sometimes be misleading.
Take for example in Star Wars the main weapon of an ISD is a turbo laser, however they are not actually lasers. They are plasma based weapons.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:39 PM
But does that mean they don't have anything that does just that? If this is our future you'd think they would carry on the tradition of good electronic countermeasures, not just armor and weapons.
I'm just telling you what I know and what the cannon says. I've never seen a weapon in Star Trek that re-directs phaser or disruptor fire away from it's target.
The main defensive weapons are shields and ablative hull armour. Both of which simply absorb a hit and dissipate the energy.
Kerjack
10-07-2008, 07:50 PM
Yeah, but Star trek is so much better then Star Wars it needs someone to mount a defense.
I'll submit that Star wars ships must be very high tech if all your console consists of is 4 lights and 2 buttons. But the fact that we are suppose to buy those numbers for the power of their weapons is just laughable. Every ship in the Starwars Universe would disintegrate with a single shot from slave one. Yet even a bucket of bolts can withstand it for some time.
Nono, those numbers are just propiganda released by the empire to further instill fear in going up against the fleet.
Pax Britannia
10-07-2008, 07:55 PM
Yeah, but Star trek is so much better then Star Wars it needs someone to mount a defense.
I'll submit that Star wars ships must be very high tech if all your console consists of is 4 lights and 2 buttons. But the fact that we are suppose to buy those numbers for the power of their weapons is just laughable. Every ship in the Starwars Universe would disintegrate with a single shot from slave one. Yet even a bucket of bolts can withstand it for some time.
Nono, those numbers are just propiganda released by the empire to further instill fear in going up against the fleet.
Well Star Wars being higher tech than Trek isnt in debate, it most deffinetly is. When you consider that in Star Wars people can travel across the Galaxy in a matter of hours and it takes Trek ships 75 years to cross one quadrant you get an idea of the scale of the disparity.
I read somewhere before that Star Wars is supposed to be something like 20,000 years ahead of us in technology. Compare that to Star Trek which is set (for the most part) in the 2300's and you can see why Star Wars domninates so utterly.
The Enterprise E attacking an Imperator class Star Destroyer is like a river raft trying to ram a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
Kerjack
10-07-2008, 07:57 PM
Well Star Wars being higher tech than Trek isnt in debate, it most deffinetly is. When you consider that in Star Wars people can travel across the Galaxy in a matter of hours and it takes Trek ships 75 years to cross one quadrant you get an idea of the scale of the disparity.
I read somewhere before that Star Wars is supposed to be something like 20,000 years ahead of us in technology. Compare that to Star Trek which is set (for the most part) in the 2300's and you can see why Star Wars domninates so utterly.
The Enterprise E attacking an Imperator class Star Destroyer is like a river raft trying to ram a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
Hey that ain't too bad, I remember one dingy that blew a pretty big hole in a US vessel.
Candycane
10-07-2008, 10:04 PM
I love Starbuck, so you know who I'm backing.
Archetype
10-07-2008, 10:13 PM
This picture is weird.
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0610/14/battlestar7.jpg
That is all.
Archangel
10-08-2008, 03:26 AM
Yeah, but Star trek is so much better then Star Wars
Quote of the day, next to Claydon claiming that "Obama isn't a powerful speaker".
I'll submit that Star wars ships must be very high tech if all your console consists of is 4 lights and 2 buttons. But the fact that we are suppose to buy those numbers for the power of their weapons is just laughable. Every ship in the Starwars Universe would disintegrate with a single shot from slave one. Yet even a bucket of bolts can withstand it for some time.
That's what the shields are for. Withstand what for some time? I distinctly remember Han Solo talking about how that now the shields were gone, one more hit and they would be "done for".
One good hit from an X-Wing's cannon WILL disintegrate an unshielded TIE Fighter.
Nono, those numbers are just propiganda released by the empire to further instill fear in going up against the fleet.
Yeah, propaganda. I guess that the Death Star blowing Alderaan the fuck up with one shot was just a hoax.
Archangel
10-08-2008, 03:33 AM
http://www.forumspile.com/owned/Owned-StarWars-Alderaan.jpg
Claydon
10-08-2008, 03:36 AM
Star Wars is epic, star trek is more....'realistic' i guess you could say.
Archangel
10-08-2008, 03:48 AM
Star Wars is epic, star trek is more....'realistic' i guess you could say.
Ahem.
Trekkies are dicks. The only argument they have for the perceived "superiority" of their beloved Trek is "scientific accuracy" which, when talking about sci-fi space sagas, is like saying that Narnia is better than LotR because it's more "realistic", or that Katie Price's tits look less fake than Pamela Anderson's, especially considering that Star Wars never set out to be anything more than a fairy tale, just with X-Wings instead of horses and star destroyers instead of dragons.
I'll also go on record and say that the worst of the Star Wars movies is still leagues ahead of all Trek flicks with the possible exceptions of VI and VIII.
how the fuck can made up science be accurate? The mere concept is patently absurd
It's just so fucking stupid. "Yeah, but in Trek, everything is scientifically rationalised."
Who gives a flying fuck? That's like saying that digital fact-sheet printouts make for better reading than a good novel. I enjoy Trek, and while I appreciate technological accuracy in, say, a Patrick Robinson submarine thriller, I couldn't bloody care less about what equations and rules are behind a fucking sci-fi flick I tune into to see spaceships get blown the fuck up.
EDIT: Also, what Face said.
Trek writers have a bad habit of writing themselves into corners, and using technobabble to get themselves out. Next Gen pulled it off because the cast was awesome and really could make you believe what they were saying. On the other hand, Voyager was fucking awful, every fucking problem was either cause or solved by quantum something or other, and it seemed that half the cast was only there to spew babble and were otherwise ignored
my dad is fond of using the phrase 'Bullshit Baffles Brains', Voyagers writers probably had that in big bold letters right on the frint cover of the writer's bible
Pax Britannia
10-08-2008, 08:08 AM
I love Starbuck, so you know who I'm backing.
I want to back you.
Does that make sense?
}{arlequin
10-08-2008, 10:38 AM
re: trek
i don't have enough 'technical' knowledge but this is still patently obvious... on one hand you have an exploration type of ship whose mission is to 'seek out new civ...blah blah' and on the other you have a ship named "star destroyer". not an "opponent's space ship destroyer" but rather a warship geared to rule over a galaxy. haha is there any doubt??
Archangel
10-08-2008, 10:40 AM
That's why this thread is actually about a star destroyer duking it out with a ship endowed with a similarly aggressive sobriquet.
Pax Britannia
10-08-2008, 10:42 AM
Kinky.
That's why this thread is actually about a star destroyer duking it out with a ship endowed with a similarly aggressive sobriquet.
But it ISN'T equivalent, that's the problem of the question. There is no equal to Star Wars level tech if you aren't going to listen to the people on the margins whining about the accuracy of the manuals and such. They are far and away the most powerful warships, so any question is silly.
}{arlequin
10-08-2008, 11:00 AM
looks like a deathstar that's been buffed to a shine
The GWD
10-08-2008, 01:22 PM
Ahem.
When did you guys have that conversation? I want to add that Gene Roddenberry was a dick. He had a simple ass idea capitalizing on the space craze of the 50's and 60's, and the writers expanded on that. Then Gene took credit for a lot of shit he didn't actually think of.
At least George Lucas can claim full creative responsibility for A New Hope, which is a pretty fuckin' good movie.
Archetype
10-08-2008, 02:34 PM
Star Wars is epic, star trek is more....'realistic' i guess you could say.
Star Trek is more realistic for one reason and one reason only: Nerds watched it, and then decided to invent shit after it.