>>71232291
a gunstar with a deathblossom would beat both tbqhfamily
>>71232291
star trek is better.
>>71232291
I think SW would win just because they seem to have lots of different ships with more diversified roles than in ST.
>>71232445
shame it got erased
>>71232457
that and they're warships, and Star Wars generally most of the federation ships are not.
Hodor
>>71232445
>shields at 100%, take 1 phaser blast, shields at 92%, computers throwing fire and sparks and shit, people flinging to the deck, hull breaches on decks 23-54
yeah star trek ships are great
>>71232483
we don't really know what technology is used in star wars. If it's lasers then they ded.
>>71232445
Depends on what you like
Wars for action flick
Trek for societal commentary and hella cutie aliens
>>71232541
are we doing movie vs movie or eu vs eu? because star wars has some crazy stupid eu weapons, like a thing the size of a pickup truck that has missiles that can cause stars to blow up and shit like that
>>71232291
So stupid how people compare them just because they have "Star" in the title and they both have space ships
Star Trek is soft science fiction, Star Wars is high fantasy with superficial sci-fi elements, it has more in common with Lord of the Rings.
Star wars is for the casuals and normies
Star trek is for the nerds
>>71232579
this
>>71232291
>>71232291
>Trek's got the technology but SW's got the raw power.
>If a Trek ship's got time to prepare for a fight and can pull of a very fast offensive they can win.
>If a SW ship gets the jump on them they are completely fucked.
>If a Star Destroyer has time to deploy fighters the Trek ship is fucked.
>If a Star Destroyer hits a Trek ship before it can telemagic a photon torpedo to the Star Destroyer's Explodytron 5000 reaction the Trek ship is fucked.
>If the Star Destroyer enters warp the Trek ship can't keep up.
>If the Trek ship enters warp the Star Destroyer can overshoot it and meet it where it lands.
>Trek combat is usually about finding and exploiting a weakness and planet destroying bases done by the Empire are big on those.
>Q > the force, assuming he's not just sitting back with popcorn watching shit unfold
>the force > psychic races and will actually be used in combat
>phaser guns > blasters
Combat wise, Star Trek is royally fucked. Frankly the WH40K vs Star Wars threads were a little more interesting.
>>71233166
too bad the right is what the new Trek movies are
>>71232524
kek
>>71233166
This would be funnier without the racism, friend
>>71233508
Learn how to spell the word "breathe" first, Nigyega.
A normal Star Wars fleet like a shit ton of star destroyers out numbers pretty much anything starfleet could throw at it
>>71232291
>It's a warp drive malfunction throws us back in time episode
Star Wars ships have the shield generators outside the shields, once the Federation realise that, they stand no chance
>>71233226
what new star trek movies?
>>71233791
>it's a 'this character wants to leave/change their extremely authoritarian and pussified planet but nobody wants to cause a political fuck up so everyone negotiates some way to get the character free and the authoritarians finally see the error of their ways' episode
Are we talking a straight battle? I thought this was already decided a while ago. Isn't there a website that completely breaks it down?
If your talking which is the better franchise in general, both sides have to slog through a lot of shit.
>>71234279
*you're, damn it
>>71232291
If we utilize the technical manuals published for both universes then:
Weapons: Star Wars wins. Their weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than anything in Trek. So much so that one turbolaser bolt from a Star Destroyer will take out the shields of the Enterprise D, and two are guaranteed to destroy it.
Shields: Following the logic that Star Wars shields can take multiple hits form their own weapons, Star Wars wins here.
Tactics: Star Trek wins easily, as they demonstrate consistent coordination in a variety of space combat scenarios against superior force and more adaptable enemies. Star Wars tends to rely on luck and space magic much of the time.
Other Technology: Tie- Star Wars can travel across a galaxy in days. Star Trek can cover the same distance in a century. Star Trek has transporters. Theoretically these could lend a tactical advantage by beaming torpedoes directly onto an enemy bridge, depending on if they can go through shields.
My personal conclusion: Star Wars. Despite being a much larger Star Trek fan, the numbers simply favor Star Wars. I am not ashamed of this. In Star Wars they have had a galaxy spanning society for over 20,000 years and the Federation is still a relative baby. If you gave both sides the exact same tech and a year to prepare, the Federation would come out ahead most assuredly.
>>71232291
>Star Trek vs. Star Wars
animu tier bullshit
>>71234421
Star wars is not Galaxy spanning. Nearly half of the Galaxy of totally unmapped
>>71234680
>Star Wars
>Consistent canon
Pick one
>>71234680
A span is a distance from point to point. There are well known and inhabited planets in every region of space in Star Wars.
Galaxy spanning does not infer that every rock has been catalogued. The Federation hasn't even done that within their own space. Hell, we have islands on our own planet that haven't had a foot set upon them, yet we are a "global civilization".
Don't be an idiot.
>>71232291
>>71232291
Nostalgia inbound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4
>>71234974
>Star Destroyers don't have shields.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html
>>71234279
How would they deal with Warbirds that have cloaking tech
>>71234974
>LAZER
>Light Amplification by the Ztimulated Emission of Radiaton
>>71235048
cloaking exists in star wars
they're mentioned in Episode V, and they're actually shown in The Clone Wars cartoon
>>71235044
Fankwank garbage
>>71232524
Shields at 100%, take 40 blasts from Destroyer Lasers... Shields still at 100%... el oh el Disney removing the extended universe from Canon has really fucked your arguments.
After all it was the extended universe that explained the the lasers weren't actually lasers.
>>71235103
Tech wise that picture is accurate, maybe. But you're forgetting the space wizards who can choke out the borg or electrocute them with magic lightning
>>71235044
>http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/Shield2.html
None of that shit is canon anymore. Stop linking to shit that happens to get information from the extended universe.
>>71235206
Until a Borg manages to assimilate one of those space wizards, and add their biological distinctiveness to their own. Billions of Borg Jedi / Sith...lol.
>>71233166
And the totally-not-gay-at-all 4chan obsession with black cock is going strong I see!
>>71235206
the lightning trick wouldn't work more than once, they would adapt their shields to it.
As for the force choke, very very few people in the empire can even do it, and they can only do it to one person at a time at best.
>>71235232
The star destroyers in the canon films didn't stop having shield towers, clearly implied to be the generation of their shields in Jedi. Further reinforced in much of Clone Wars and Rebels, both canon.
Stop being a faggot.
>>71235275
No, don't be stupid. If robots could use the force there would already be a trillion force sensitive droids in the galaxy. We already know that cybernetics reduce force power per Anikin losing his powerlevel after turning into Vader.
>>71235355
He still had it though, and was still fairly powerful and he had a great deal more cybernetics than the Borg do.
>>71232579
I can get behind this. Also, I will opt for Trek. The societal commentary makes for a better developed story, or even more stories. Star Wars plays out like some fairy tale kid shit.
>>71235391
>>71232291
Neither
>>71232579
>hella cutie aliens
Neither Trek nor Wars has this to be honest.
Only the princess from the prequels who was drop dead gorgeous in her form fitting white thingamabob.
If I want action movies I'll check out the based ones from the '80 with Arnold. If I want science fiction only 30% of Trek films are acceptable and all Wars are shit. Star Trek TV shows are good, I'm not even going to mention Wars TV.
>>71232291
I tend to like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJS18wQZd5Q
more than pew-pew
but even if I did prefer simple action '09 Star Trek managed to beat out Star Wars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ArVBL8EgKU
OUT OF THE WAY PLEBEIANS SUPERIOR INTERSTELLAR EMPIRE COMING THROUGH
GALACTIC FEDERATION OF WORLDS? SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCUSE TO FORNICATE WITH FILTHY XENOS AND THAT IS HERESY
OH YOU HAVE A GALACTIC EMPIRE TOO? BEEN AROUND ONLY 20 YEARS? HOW QUAINT CALL US WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN DOMINATING THE GALAXY FOR 42,000 YEARS
NOW OUT OF MY WAY JUST BUSY TEARING A HOLE IN THE FABRIC OF REALITY TO TRAVEL THROUGH LITERALLY HELL TO GET TO WHERE I AM GOING THANKS
>>71235174
They weren't lasers.
>>71235174
No. The prequels explain this. Because Amidala's ship is a fucking mirror. It's strictly a visual cue but logic still applies.
>>71235878
Turbo Lasers are still fucking lasers as the name implies.
You go on what the Canon fucking states, not what logic fucking states. If you go by logic then the Borg would have fucking won in the Star Trek universe. But canon states otherwise.
>>71236128
>Turbo Lasers are still fucking lasers as the name implies.
Oh yeah.
>"""""laser"""""
>Travels slower than light
>Can't be reflected
It smells like a fucking rose. I don't care that some jackass in universe insisted they continue calling the plant Turbo Ivy when the thing is nothing like its namesake.
>>71236128
Turbolasers are contained energy bolts. In a lot of ways they are just like phasers (phased emissions of radiation). They are called turbolasers because of how they look, but they are clearly not lasers. Their speed of movement and the recoil of the cannons seen in the films indicate they are a form of projectile. Lasers are never projectiles.
>>71236235
What you're describing, is what the EXTENDED universe explained. Since that is no longer canon, you go by what the canon fucking movies called them. LASERS.
They are lasers because the movies called them such. Plain and simple.
>>71236235
These are lasers desu
>no recoil
>instaneous
https://youtu.be/Xkm9h0S4wr8?t=1m3s
>>71236179
>Adding "Turbo" to the word laser.
There's no way they actually did that. Asinine.
>>71236323
You keep bringing up the EU, even though I clearly described what we see in the films. I already stated they are called turbolasers because of how they look. Kind of like how George Lucas tried to call light sabers "laser swords". In George Lucas' mind, "light" translates as "laser".
>>71236330
It's nice that you posted this vid of a ground battle with "Blasters", and not a ship battle with "Turbolasers".
Plus, your definition of "instantaneous" is very different than anyone else'. If you can see the blaster bolt, it isn't a laser.
>>71236330
What video game is this?
>>71236466
What you fucking see is irrelevant, are they calling them lasers or not?
>>71236598
You seriously take naming convention over basic fucking logic. Lasers are light, friend. They travel at the speed of light. This is a basic and immutable facet of their being. Simple criteria for determining what a laser is. Turbo Laser bolts travel as fast as fucking bullets. They fail the first God damned test.
No how matter how much I call you a nigger loving faggot it's not true unless you actually cram jet black cock up your ass.
>>71236712
I take what is in CANON.
Unlike you, who is so salty over the EU no longer existing and now allowing Star Trek to rape Star Wars because their shitty Lasers.
Don't be pissed because the great Lucas was a fucking tard.
Basic fucking logic would think that the Borg would fucking slaughter the federation, they wouldn't travel back in time once, fail to accomplish their goals then give up. They'd KEEP fucking doing it. But canon says otherwise, so I have to go with that.
>>71236712
I think the gap in your logic he is failing to understand is that he does, in fact, cram jet black cock up his ass. He therefore assumes that what something is called is what it is. He couldn't even understand that "laser sword" clearly isn't a laser. Nothing will help that guy.
>>71236861
You keep saying canon, but it doesn't change the fact that JUST WATCHING THE MOVIES, turbolasers are clearly not lasers. The are more like giant blasters, which also are clearly not lasers.
They're really not that similar other than the word "Star" in the title.
Here's an idea, let's add Stargate and Battlestar Galactica to the mix.
>>71237241
Probably the easiest way to do this is the capability to destroy a planet from orbit. Star Wars demonstrates this capability the best, while the other three all have basically advanced nuclear capabilities.
In ship combat it is Star Wars > Star Trek > Stargate > Battlestar (Battlestar last based on basic nuclear armament in small capacity and projectile missiles and bullets for everything else).
>>71232291
Single engagements? Draw.
Drawn out war? Star Wars win.
Sure their weapons and non FTL speeds are sluggish, but their means of FTL travel is vastly superior, they have vastly superior production capability and can churn out more arms, armor, space stations, etc. If we're talking classic GE vs Federation then they also have a vastly superior military with a greater range of weaponry (even if you cut out weapons in the EU).
As an aside for the mentally impaired, turbolasers are not firing literal laser beams, a beam does not produce an individual blob of energy which is wider at one end and has an appreciable travel time between the ship firing and the ship being fired upon.
