Versus Battles R1 - Federation vs Empire

[DarthTimon]

I guess there should be some form of introduction, and some sort of groundwork/rules. I've dipped in and out of the Trek vs Wars debate (and by extension, other vs debates) for many years. I am by no means an expert (there have certainly been people who have contributed far more than I ever could have), but I'd like to think I've left a small mark on what can be a fun, stimulating (if occasionally heated) field.

Before delving too far into it, for the first versus debate, I'm falling back on the old classic - Federation from Star Trek, against the Galactic Empire from Star Wars.

Some rules. The TV shows and movies are canon for Star Trek. For Star Wars, the movies, TV shows are primary canon, and the Expanded Universe (unless contradicted) is secondary. This refers to books and novels that take place between the movies, and could also be considered 'Disney canon'.

 

[Marc]

Warp drive for instance ftl without the need to calculate a hyperspace space jump, photon torpedoes and transporters.

Imperials wouldn't know what hit them.

 

[JoeZhang]

You beam key personal off the bridge of the Empire ships and then use phasers to take out key conduits.

THE END.

 

[DarthTimon]

Thank you for the first couple of posts guys.

To address your points first of all @Marc , bear in mind that whilst hyperdrive needs calculations, it offers the Empire an enormous strategic advantage - it is far faster than warp drive, to the point where Imperial ships can travel across the galaxy in mere weeks, rather than decades. This would allow the Empire to jump into a system, attack, and withdraw to a distance far beyond the Federation's reach.

Transporters (something which @JoeZhang also brought up) are all well and good, but they cannot cut through shields, and they struggle to work effectively in the presence of various forms of electromagnetic disturbances, and ECM is a routine part of Imperial warfare.

 

[Marc]

Transporters (something which @JoeZhang also brought up) are all well and good, but they cannot cut through shields, and they struggle to work effectively in the presence of various forms of electromagnetic disturbances, and ECM is a routine part of Imperial warfare.

They can't penetrate shields in the star trek universe but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to go through imperial shields

 

[DarthTimon]

They can't penetrate shields in the star trek universe but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to go through imperial shields

Why would this be the case? Shields are shields - on top of that, there's the ECM warfare.

 

[TheMadCloner]

Why would this be the case? Shields are shields - on top of that, there's the ECM warfare.

How do we know the ECM warfare works on ST technology? That’s just as arbitrary as your point about the shields. That’s why these hypothetical fictional battles are always a headache. Most arguments involve some sort of arbitrary, underlying assumption about one side or the other.

 

[DarthTimon]

How do we know the ECM warfare works on ST technology? That’s just as arbitrary as your point about the shields. That’s why these hypothetical fictional battles are always a headache. Most arguments involve some sort of arbitrary, underlying assumption about one side or the other.

Is it arbitrary though? We know transporters glitch out in various circumstances. In TNG Season 1, ep Symbiosis, X-Ray flares from a solar flare make using transporters dangerous at best. Naturally occurring radiation in S3's Ensigns of Command prevented transporter use.

Also in S3, The Enemy, electromagnetic radiation prevented transporter use. The same issue arises in S4 Legacy, when the electromagnetic field from a transformer block is the cause.

So there's a pattern here, based on evidence, that various things interfere with transporters.

 

[TheMadCloner]

Is it arbitrary though? We know transporters glitch out in various circumstances. In TNG Season 1, ep Symbiosis, X-Ray flares from a solar flare make using transporters dangerous at best. Naturally occurring radiation in S3's Ensigns of Command prevented transporter use.

Also in S3, The Enemy, electromagnetic radiation prevented transporter use. The same issue arises in S4 Legacy, when the electromagnetic field from a transformer block is the cause.

So there's a pattern here, based on evidence, that various things interfere with transporters.

Well, here's the thing.

Star Trek has hundreds of hours of on-screen "evidence". Star Wars has far less than that. One series is going to have more internal inconsistencies simply because of the amount that is out there.

The technology in both franchises is attenuated for the purpose of plotting and/or dramatic tension. I find it pointless to engage in a hypothetical battle when over half the "evidence" for each side is attenuated. Let's not pretend like there is actual comparative science going on here.

These battles always end inconclusively because of this. It's like all those Marvel vs. DC arguments. Is it fun to imagine? Yeah. Is there going to be a conclusive "answer" or "experimental result" to the debate? No, never.

Not unless the writers make a crossover, that is.

 

[DarthTimon]

Well, here's the thing.

Star Trek has hundreds of hours of on-screen "evidence". Star Wars has far less than that. One series is going to have more internal inconsistencies simply because of the amount that is out there.

The technology in both franchises is attenuated for the purpose of plotting and/or dramatic tension. I find it pointless to engage in a hypothetical battle when over half the "evidence" for each side is attenuated. Let's not pretend like there is actual comparative science going on here.

These battles always end inconclusively because of this. It's like all those Marvel vs. DC arguments. Is it fun to imagine? Yeah. Is there going to be a conclusive "answer" or "experimental result" to the debate? No, never.

Not unless the writers make a crossover, that is.

A crossover would be amazing, but we all know it's also a big fat nope, sadly.

As far as comparisons go, science is funnily enough the best means. It's the neutral common ground - if we see photon torpedoes blow up something on a planet, we can work out the firepower. Therefore, when we have multiple episodes showing how transporters are easily interfered with (and there's far more examples out there), we can draw some pretty definite conclusions.

 

[Ithekro]

A base problem is that Imperial turbolasers are very inconsistent in what damage they do.

 

[TheMadCloner]

A crossover would be amazing, but we all know it's also a big fat nope, sadly.

As far as comparisons go, science is funnily enough the best means. It's the neutral common ground - if we see photon torpedoes blow up something on a planet, we can work out the firepower. Therefore, when we have multiple episodes showing how transporters are easily interfered with (and there's far more examples out there), we can draw some pretty definite conclusions.

There was a website a long time ago dedicated to working out the science involved in a hypothetical comparison. All I could think of at the time was how silly it was to try and use science in situations where:

a) there is significant internal inconsistency

b) the end effects are attenuated for the purpose of plotting and drama

c) the end effects are observed through a television lens

d) the absence of seeing something presented on screen does not necessarily mean that something does not exist or cannot be done

It’s pointless IMO. Any conclusions gathered based on that kind of visual “evidence” are rife with uncertainty and bias.

 

[Commander_Ninja]

Federation wins, by far, even with hyperspace technology, that would be no match for the spore drive. But, this all depends on what you truly want to factor in:

1) Which era of Starfleet are we using?
2) Are we limiting this to standard fleets and equipment?
3) Does it take place in the Milky Way or the Star Wars Galaxy?

If you want to use all shows and movies for canon Federation without restrictions, then both the Expanded Universe and Disney-canon have little to no way of winning. A much closer way of the Empire winning would be if you pit it against a 22nd century fleet in a random location in space.

 

[DarthTimon]

There was a website a long time ago dedicated to working out the science involved in a hypothetical comparison. All I could think of at the time was how silly it was to try and use science in situations where:

a) there is significant internal inconsistency

b) the end effects are attenuated for the purpose of plotting and drama

c) the end effects are observed through a television lens

d) the absence of seeing something presented on screen does not necessarily mean that something does not exist or cannot be done

It’s pointless IMO. Any conclusions gathered based on that kind of visual “evidence” are rife with uncertainty and bias.

In the end though, dialogue is rife with the same issue - it is often inconsistent with itself and with visuals. It is much harder to analyse. It is subject to interpretation and re-interpretation in a way visuals are not.

If we're going to find a 'neutral zone' to compare different sci-fi genres with, the only one that really makes any sense to me is science itself. After all, in respect of the transporter question, we know there are lots of things that block or interfere with transporters, we know Imperial ships from Star Wars use jamming and ECM, what's the most reasonable conclusion to reach?

 

[TheMadCloner]

In the end though, dialogue is rife with the same issue - it is often inconsistent with itself and with visuals. It is much harder to analyse. It is subject to interpretation and re-interpretation in a way visuals are not.

If we're going to find a 'neutral zone' to compare different sci-fi genres with, the only one that really makes any sense to me is science itself. After all, in respect of the transporter question, we know there are lots of things that block or interfere with transporters, we know Imperial ships from Star Wars use jamming and ECM, what's the most reasonable conclusion to reach?

That Data would come up with a way to bypass the ECM and transport a waiting-to-detonate photon torpedo onto the bridge of every Imperial heavy cruiser?

I'm not advocating we use dialogue either. I'm saying it's pointless to have this debate, because there is no right answer and it will likely never be depicted on-screen in canon.

 

[DarthTimon]

Federation wins, by far, even with hyperspace technology, that would be no match for the spore drive. But, this all depends on what you truly want to factor in:

1) Which era of Starfleet are we using?
2) Are we limiting this to standard fleets and equipment?
3) Does it take place in the Milky Way or the Star Wars Galaxy?

If you want to use all shows and movies for canon Federation without restrictions, then both the Expanded Universe and Disney-canon have little to no way of winning. A much closer way of the Empire winning would be if you pit it against a 22nd century fleet in a random location in space.

Thanks for the reply Ninja!

Spore drive is strange, fast, and... strange. It is also limited to one ship, and not referred to at any point after Discovery's disappearance. Every other Federation vessel is limited to warp drive, which cannot remotely match hyperdrive for speed and strategic flexibility.

To answer your questions:

1. Post Dominion War for the Federation. This would represent the point where the Federation was still technically on a war footing. For the Empire, The Empire Strikes Back. A lot of Star Wars fans I know who've taken part in these discussions consider this to be the Empire's peak.

2. The Federation has access to all its resources and fleets, as does the Empire. In terms of 'standard', well, I guess that needs refining. Are we talking no 'one-shot' technobabble devices? Ideally, yes, as they usually appear only once, and are never referred to ever again, making them unreliable for debate purposes.

3. Think of it as 'the Empire is invading the Milky Way by means of wormhole'.

As for who would win an outright war - consider that circa A New Hope, the Empire controlled one million star systems (canon, as per the movie's novelisation), and had the industrial capacity to build, in secret, the Death Star, a piece of incredibly advanced technology that, in sheer volume terms, would be the equivalent of building thousands of Galaxy-class ships over twenty years.

In terms of fleet strength, the number often banded about for Star Destroyer numbers is 25,000, though I'm trying to find a source for that. Given that the Empire controls a galaxy via means of dictatorship, it's not surprising they would have a fleet to impress and terrorise the galaxy into submission.

The Federation is harder to pin down. To defend earth against the Borg at Wolf 359 they could only gather 39 ships. The gathering of some 600 ships (the result of two combined fleets) in DS9's 'Favour the Bold' was considered to be a large fleet by Weyoun. 2800 Dominion reinforcements were considered enough, added to existing Dominion fleets in the Alpha Quadrant, to decisively end the war. Yet there is evidence that later on in the war, the Federation fleet had dramatically expanded to several thousand vessels (still below the fleet strength of the Empire).

 

[DarthTimon]

That Data would come up with a way to bypass the ECM and transport a waiting-to-detonate photon torpedo onto the bridge of every Imperial heavy cruiser?

I'm not advocating we use dialogue either. I'm saying it's pointless to have this debate, because there is no right answer and it will likely never be depicted on-screen in canon.

'Shrug' opinions vary. I get that. That doesn't mean we can't have some fun in this thread trying to work it out right?

 

[TheMadCloner]

'Shrug' opinions vary. I get that. That doesn't mean we can't have some fun in this thread trying to work it out right?

Sure. But let's not overemphasize the use of "science" in this context, because that's a very tenuous use of the word IMO.

At best we're trying to analyze visual depictions of effects, which can be deceiving. There are also things that happen off-screen which are never shown. Just too much 'what if' if you ask me. Each side can come up with ever-increasing-brinksmanship arguments based on extremes.

And things change every month. I mean, Picard just showed that the Federation can come up with a fleet of (what looks like) hundreds of ships in mere days. And these are apparently the most advanced ships in the fleet. And I'd deduce it's not even close to their entire fleet because there is no way they would send their entire fleet (of their most advanced ships, no less) off to a lone planet in the middle of nowhere and leave their own territory undefended.

 

[DarthTimon]

Sure. But let's not overemphasize the use of "science" in this context, because that's a very tenuous use of the word IMO.

At best we're trying to analyze visual depictions of effects, which can be deceiving. There are also things that happen off-screen which are never shown. Just too much 'what if' if you ask me. Each side can come up with ever-increasing-brinksmanship arguments based on extremes.

And things change every month. I mean, Picard just showed that the Federation can come up with a fleet of (what looks like) hundreds of ships in mere days. And these are apparently the most advanced ships in the fleet. And I'd deduce it's not even close to their entire fleet because there is no way they would send their entire fleet (of their most advanced ships, no less) off to a lone planet in the middle of nowhere and leave their own territory undefended.

Well, that's where I guess we differ. I feel applying the scientific method can yield some definitive results, even in categories such as sci-fi. It'll never been 100% and it's fluid, yes, but in the end, it's a bit of fun, a bit of escapism too, and right now, we need that.

 

[Ithekro]

The site that was brought up about Star Wars was StarDestroyer.net. Was. It use t be a place of scum and villainy (with an extremely Imperial bias against the Federation...to the point of it being what would today be called toxic). I mean I like the concept of crossovers, but that place upset me to no end just how infuriating the "science" was and the "evidence" tended to do fit the weapons fire when used in actual combat. This was why I said the turbolaser was very inconsistent.