RBL Comlink

(11-14-2010, 02:46 AM)M1A2Tanker link Wrote: [ -> ]Why should I not admit to it?  It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. 

I just never thought you to be into Star Trek is all.

Live long and prosper

wow wow wow this thread is making my head spin    :o  ???  :

See?  Even Holmes is a Trekkie. 

But ya can't turn down the awesome power of a Star Destroyer or a squadron of Xwings.

why use a star destroyer when you have the death star? >

Because, as Tank would likely point out, instead of having to fire 2 torpedoes down a small vent into the central core of the DeathStar to take it out, using Trek tech, you could simply use the teleporter to place whatever type of explosive device you cared to use INSIDE the Death Star from a safe distance away, lol.

alright, good point...hmmm, how bout a super star destroyer then? ;D

Same method, placing one's choice of explosive device inside said SSD. Hmmmm, a little RED matter let loose inside the SSD would make for some interesting entertainment....AND clean up after itself too.... ;D

yeah but by doing that you run the risk of destroying yourselves as well...though i have to admit with phasers vs turbolasers and photon/quantum torpedoes vs proton torpedoes, with a phaser's range the trek ships would probably win, with being able to fire at the enemy ships from a much greater range, plus they could escape an imperial fleet easily at warp speed if they need to

The range of phasers and turbolasers is actually not as great as some think.  There's notations that turbolasers could fire out to several million km at their max range, so it depends entirely on the source you go by.

That and apparently hyperspace is faster than warp drive.  Faster than transwarp, since the GFFA and the Milky Way galaxies are the same, but you can get around the Star Wars galaxy within a few weeks. 

Honestly one could go forever with the whole 'trek vs wars' debate, but I care less.  Both have their strong points and their weak points. 

And they're both a lot of fun.