Star Wars Vs. Star Trek
 

Personally, I can't find a way Star Trek could beat Star Wars....I've looked at starfighters, species, Capital Ships, and droids, what do you think? Jedi Vs. Borg? Jedi! Super Star Destroyer Vs. a good many of the Trek ships, the SSD wins! Hey, Trek may have more movies, but it doesn't have as good of an expanded universe as Star Wars does...

Obviously Correct sir. Not to mention that superlaser on the Death Star packs a mean punch.

Lets face it, Star Wars ships are much more designed for war than Trek Ships.

our team advisor is a trekkie

REMEBER, star war ships don't have a warp drive

Star Wars will always rule over Star Trek no matter what. You already mentioned the expanded universe, and also that Trek has more movies, but I beleive that Star Wars has twice as many books and twice as many video games as Star Trek.

hands down Star Wars wins

That, and the Star Wars books and games are so much better, too... yeah, there were a few stinkers, but a lot better in general.

So running is an acceptable solution?

They can still lightspeed.

Hell, Warp Drive goes faster than lightspeed, which is fundamentally wrong anyway.

Actually, it's the other way around...

It's not possible to travel at the speed of light, but it's theoretically possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

<edit>
However, this node, on Everything2, gives a good description of different kinds of faster-than-light travel.
</edit>

Thats only if you use the definition of velocity. Realistically, you arent going faster anyway, you're just going shorter, but longer (for the warp crap anyway).

And even if you do use that definition, It would be possible to warp at the speed of light (why not?).

but with the warp drive you can pull the Picard Maneuver, that would freak out any Super Star Destroyer. Just because the SSD looks bigger, doesn't mean it can take out a good federation battle ship.

Exactly - plus, with the speed, than they can manuver much better. They can be behind the Star War team and hit them!

Go Star Trek!!

Star Destroyers have thosands of laser batteries all around the ship. The only way you can really "pull a menuever" on them is if you're either in a small fighter or running away :-p.

SSD is a class that is just beyond the Enterprise.

Anyway, heres some stuff from another forum I Frequent:

Federation Naval Tactics

Federation naval tactics are largely a hybrid between the tactics of ancient Rome and those of Horatio Nelson. Consider the following:
Roman-style boarding tactics are still used. Tractor beams and transporters are clearly analogous to Roman grappling hooks and boarding planks, and it isn't uncommon to use boarders in an attempt to overwhelm a target in the heat of combat. For example, in "Way of the Warrior", we saw Klingon warriors board DS9 and attempt to seize control of the station while it was still exchanging fire with the Klingon fleet. The Klingon warriors even fought using bladed weapons, just as their Roman legionnaire precedessors did. Contrast this with the era of Horatio Nelson and subsequent periods, in which the range and lethality of weaponry became such that it was virtually impossible to approach and board a ship without having to completely disable it beforehand.
Ramming is still the most powerful weapon available, albeit a weapon of last resort. In "Tears of the Prophets" (described on the Battles page as the Battle of Chin'toka), hopelessly outmatched Jem'Hadar attack ships (ships roughly 70-80% larger than the Falcon) eschewed energy weapons and torpedoes in favour of ramming attacks, which proved to be devastatingly effective against Martok's ships. Contrast this with the era of Horatio Nelson and subsequent periods, in which the range, accuracy and lethality of weaponry became such that the approach necessary for a ramming attack would be suicidal.
Missiles have not dominated the tactical landscape, in spite of their theoretically extreme range. Although they seem to be capable of accurately hitting targets from many thousands or even tens of thousands of kilometres away, fleets do not engage one another with long-range missile exchanges. Instead, they generally approach to gunnery range and then open fire with both energy weapons and missiles at the same time.
Battle lines are still in use, albeit modified for a 3-dimensional battlefield. In the fleet engagements of "Sacrifice of Angels" and "What You Leave Behind" (described on the Battles page as the Third Battle of Bajor and the Battle of Cardassia Prime, respectively), fleets formed up into a "wall o' ships" and faced off against one another at close visual range. Land engagement terminology such as "flank", "line", and "breakthrough" could be heard repeatedly from the command staff. The disruption of the enemy formation is a tactical imperative, as described by Captain Sisko in "Sacrifice of Angels". Contrast this with the battleship and aircraft carrier eras, in which the range, accuracy and lethality of weaponry became such that fleet formations lost their importance. Also contrast this with air combat, in which formations actually squander the advantage of maneuverability and are thus only used for slow, ungainly aircraft such as bombers.
Fleet firepower concentration is beyond their capabilities, as seen in "Sacrifice of Angels" and "What You Leave Behind." In those battles, tactics of attrition and the ruthless mathematics of the N-square law didn't apply because battle lines couldn't concentrate their firepower on individual ships. Each ship simply fired at the nearest ship in the opposing wall. Departure from the relative safety of the battle line was suicidal for a capital ship (as seen in "Sacrifice of Angels" because a ship would now be close enough to the enemy formation that multiple ships could concentrate their firepower on it. Only small ships such as fighters and Defiant-class ships could survive departure from the battle line, since the enemy ships could not accurately target them. Another example of their inability to concentrate firepower at long range was seen in "Tears of the Prophets", in which only the handful of ships closest to the "power generator moon" were able to fire on it.
The only examples of fleet firepower concentration occurred where encirclement (a ground combat term) was possible. For example, Klingon and Dominion fleets in "Way of the Warrior" and "A Call to Arms" fired on DS9 only after approaching to ~10km and encircling it.
Some would counter these statements by referring to technobabble theory, but when theory and reality fail to intersect, theory is wrong. Non-canon speculation about very long effective ranges (either for phasers or torpedoes) sound nice, but it fails to explain why the tactics of Federation starship combat invariably follow the tactics of short-ranged weapons. If these unsubstantiated claims about very long effective ranges were true, then one would be left with no alternative but to conclude that the naval officers of all the major Star Trek navies are either suicidal or certifiably insane for refusing to take advantage of those ranges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imperial Naval Tactics

Imperial naval tactics are largely based on the battleship era, with some hint of tactics from the early aircraft carrier era. Consider the following:
Boarding is not a useful combat tactic, and only occurs after the target vessel has already been disabled (as seen in ANH), or has already surrendered.
Ramming is not a useful combat tactic, and is never used or even attempted in any of the canon films. Three ISD's accidentally rammed the Executor while decelerating from hyperspace (ref: SWE), but they merely exploded against its shields. Official literature describes "robot ramships", but these weapons (essentially huge guided missiles) are designed for deceit and piracy rather than wholesale warfare, and were used once in battle, against a light cruiser.
Battle lines are not used. Fleets travel in formation which break up when combat is joined, as seen in ROTJ. The Rebel and Imperial fleets began exchanging long-range fire without any regard for formation, although Emperor Palpatine's decisions ultimately led to an Imperial defeat despite what was probably superior firepower. Piett's ships engaged long-range fire with the Rebel fleet as described in the ROTJ novelization, but they apparently targeted smaller ships before larger ships for the purpose of prolonging Palpatine's dramatic demonstration. Even Jerjerrod chose his targets in the same manner, aiming the first superlaser blast at the Liberty rather than the far more massive and heavily armed Rebel flagship Home One. On the other hand, Ackbar wisely concentrated his fleet's firepower on the Imperial flagship Executor first..
Tactics of maneuver are non-existent. Capital ships simply exchange fire with enemy capital ships, without regard for formations or "flanking", "encirclement", or "breakthrough" maneuvers.
Torpedoes are not used in capital ship combat. Despite apocryphal descriptions to the contrary, there are no canon sightings or descriptions of any capship missiles. Capital ship combat seems to be conducted exclusively with turbolasers, which isn't surprising given the lack of damage caused by proton torpedoes in ANH (Red Leader's torpedoes barely scratched the DS exhaust port surface structure) and TPM (Naboo torpedoes were ineffective against the TradeFed battleship).
Fighters exist but they are incapable of carrying the fight to the enemy unaided, so a fighter attack can only complement the big guns, rather than replacing them. This was seen most strikingly in the beginning stages of the Battle of Endor, when hordes of Imperial fighters and bombers attacked without support and swarmed over the Rebel fleet, but were unable to destroy or seriously damage a single warship. It was seen again in TPM, when the Naboo fighter squadron fought a hopeless battle to destroy a TradeFed battleship (a battle that Qui-Gon obviously expected them to lose) despite having the element of surprise (the battleship didn't launch its own fighters until the attackers were already within naked-eye visual range).
Combat can occur at very long visual ranges (made longer by the sheer size of Imperial warships, which makes them easier to see at a distance), as seen in TESB when the Rebel ground defenses engaged Imperial ships in orbit. It was seen again in ROTJ when Rebel and Imperial warships exchanged fire at long visual range and then closed to less than 10 km ("point-blank range" as the battle intensified.
Again, some might counter these arguments with technobabble theory, but again, what you see is what you get. They have fighters, but they can't use them the way terrestrial navies used them. They have torpedoes, but as anyone can see from ROTJ and TPM, they're obviously not ship-killers the way they were for submarines. They have guided missiles, but those missiles didn't turn space combat into long-range affairs of duelling missile platforms, the way they did for terrestrial navies and aircraft. It's not enough to affix a label to a particular weapon and assume it's precisely analogous to terrestrial equivalents; you must look at the way it's used, before you can begin to guess what it can do.

page 2
 

Technical Ramifications
The use of battle lines, ramming tactics, and balanced short-range gun/missile attacks in Star Trek leads us to the following conclusions:
Anti-ship weaponry in Star Trek is not combat-effective at ranges exceeding ~10km, because battle lines form up at those ranges and cannot employ fleet firepower concentration without encirclement (also at that range). Torpedoes and phasers can physically travel farther than that, but targeting difficulties can limit effective range even when theoretical range is very large.
Hulls, shields and structural forcefields are insufficient to nullify the effectiveness of ramming, because ramming attacks were so effective against undamaged, fully shielded Klingon warships in "Tears of the Prophets" (even when undertaken by miniscule 70m long ships). This suggests large disparities between Star Trek ships' ability to handle kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy.
Combat maneuverability of capital ships is high enough to permit Nelson-style tactics of maneuver (hence the flanking maneuvers attempted by Jem'Hadar ships), but not high enough to permit fighter plane tactics (hence their use of combat formations).
Based on the parallel use of phasers and photon torpedoes, the effective range of missiles seems to be far lower than their theoretical range. A likely explanation is that their limited AI and ECM (in addition to poor maneuverability) makes them easy to shoot down at long range, where the defenders have a lot of time to see them coming.
The use of concentrated gunnery tactics in conjunction with fighter harassment in Star Wars leads us to the following conclusions:
Anti-ship weaponry in Star Wars is combat-effective at ranges of at least several hundred kilometres based on the unimportance of battle formations, even at long visual ranges such as those seen in ROTJ. This was demonstrated when the Rebel ion cannon engaged ISD's in the Battle of Hoth, and again when the DS2 superlaser engaged Rebel cruisers in the Battle of Endor.
Weapons based on turbolaser technology dominate the battlefield in Star Wars, with scalability ranging as low as a hand blaster and as high as the awesome planet-destroying Death Star superlaser. Torpedoes are relatively unimportant, and seem to serve only as starfighter weapons.
Starfighters, by virtue of their weak armament, cannot successfully attack capital ships without capship support. There is some apocryphal literature to support the opposite notion, but it originates entirely from the notoriously propagandistic New Republic descriptions of the exaggerated exploits of Wedge Antilles and his X-wing squadron. Canon support for this notion is nonexistent, and in the Battle of ROTJ, the fighters were used merely to "finish off" ships which have already been disabled by turbolaser cannonade, such as the Imperial communications ship and the Executor (also see the novelization, in which we heard Ackbar informing his bridge crew that "if we can knock out their shields, our fighters might stand a chance against them"- a far cry from the apocryphal nonsense of fighter squadrons pummeling the shields of warships).

Industrial Capacity and Territorial Holdings

Total assets include more than one million star systems, and millions of warships including tens of thousands of standard KDY Star Destroyers. Our command craft dwarf their space stations, and our space stations are the size of small moons. We have even built artificial planets in the past.

Total assets include roughly one hundred and fifty star systems, and a few thousand small warships. Their fleets are so puny that they actually include fighters in their ship counts! Their largest starbases are less than a dozen kilometres in length.

Propulsion Technology:

Warp Drive vs Hyperdrive
Hyperdrive allows us to traverse a galaxy in hours or days. Their warp drive is so slow that they require decades to cross their galaxy.

Beam Weapons:

Phasers vs Turbolasers
Heavy turbolasers release many gigatons of energy per shot, while light turbolasers release dozens of megatons of energy per shot. A Star Destroyer carries more than a hundred light turbolasers and dozens of heavy turbolasers. The Death Star (a massive compound turbolaser) releases more energy than the Sun produces in over seven thousand years! We also have ion cannon technology, which they lack. Details
Their phasers appear to induce some kind of chain reaction in matter. Against shields, they seem to be tactically equivalent to lasers in the range of 30,000 TW (7 megatons per second). Against dense armour, their effectiveness is much lower, in the 1-10TW range (1 kiloton per second). A typical starship has only a handful of phaser arrays.

Torpedoes:
Photon/Quantum torpedoes vs Imperial missiles
Our missiles are not our heaviest weapons, and are mostly used for fighter combat or attacks on "soft targets", such as starships whose shields have been disabled by turbolaser fire. Therefore, most missiles are very small, low-yield devices, although there have been notable exceptions (eg. the huge and devastating Galaxy Gun missiles or the Suncrusher's quantum resonance torpedoes). Maneuverability can be superb; Luke's torpedo executed a 72,000g turn in ANH. Details
Their torpedoes are their heaviest weapons, with an upper limit of 64 megatons for photon torpedoes and roughly twice that for quantum torpedoes. In fact, some significant battles have been fought exclusively with torpedoes. They are capable of superluminal speeds when launched from a warp-driven starship, thus making them useful for long-range first-strike actions and surprise attacks. They have good acceleration and guidance systems, but limited maneuverability.

Shields
Our capital ship shields can survive direct hits from multi-megaton nuclear warheads and turbolasers. Our planetary shields are far stronger, and can withstand days or weeks of sustained fleet bombardment with multi-gigaton heavy turbolasers. Alderaan's planetary shield actually blocked the Death Star superlaser for a split-second.

Their capital ship shields can survive prolonged exposure to intense solar radiation, as well as direct hits from multi-megaton nuclear or antimatter weapons. They lack planetary shields, so they rely on orbital defense platforms and interceptors to safeguard their citizens.

Sensors
We had subspace sensors more than 25,000 years ago, during the time of Xim the Despot. We can detect cloaked ships using focus-scans or CGT sensors. Details
They have subspace sensors which can detect sublight or warp-speed ships from light years away. Ships using hyperdrive would outrace their sensor packets. They cannot detect cloaked ships without using point to point networks.

Communications
Capital ship subspace transceivers have a range of 100 light years. The Holo-Net permits real-time communication across the galaxy.
Their subspace transceivers have a range of 22 light years.

Power Generation
Star Destroyers produce as much power as a small star, and Death Star hypermatter reactors produce millions of times the power of a typical main-sequence star. Details
Their unstable matter/antimatter reactors can produce power on the order of 1E19 to 1E20 watts (similar to a tiny star). Their fusion reactors are limited to the TW range.

Special Technology
Virtually all of our most advanced engineering facilities are focused on the task of developing and refining more efficient, more durable, and more deadly methods of destroying or subjugating our enemies. The results of those efforts have been seen in projects such as the Suncrusher, World Devastators, and Galaxy Gun. This is not to say that we totally lack non-military technologies, but we focus our efforts differently than the Federation does.

They have devoted intense research efforts to the areas of health, recreation, convenience and beauty. However, they appear to have a negative attitude toward aggressive military research, so nascent technologies with potential military applications have languished. This anti-military cultural bias will only make them easier to defeat in a lightning campaign.

lol where did you find all this stuff?

Patrick, where the heck did you dig this up? Sounds like someone's a bit obsessed...

Found it on this forum I go to for Starcraft. The person who posted it there probably got it from somewhere else :)

I think there's really only one term to define the actions and realizations that have just taken place here, in regards to anyone left here who still supports star trek as a superior entity...


OWNED

Now I'll be fair and say I'm a sci-fi geek, so i like most sci-fi equally, including these two. Just a few things I'd like to point out. Jedi vs. Borg: the jedi would kill off a few drones, but then the Borg would adapt to the lightsabers (remember, a lightsaber is built with the purpose of the same beam looping and repeating. That means it's limited to one frequency.), and assimilate the Jedi, making the Borg more powerful. Warp vs. hyperdrive: ever hear of transwarp? That'll get you across the galaxy almost instantly if done right (although I believe the best one we saw took a day to go across the galaxy). Oh, and one Star Trek game that outshines almost any other (even non sci-fi) game: Elite Force. You should play it sometime. Alright, Star Wars does dominate in the space sim genre (I love the Rouge Squadron games). A final note: a small group of 8472 ships took out a sun, planet, it's moon, a Borg outpost, and 3 cubes in one combined shot. Yes, Star Wars has much better movies (although I'm still waiting for Lucas's excuse for The Phantom Menace). I think we can all agree though that they are both seperate universes, and should be enjoyed as such, as much as anybody wants.

I so feel like a geek....

Bah, Jedi Don't need their lightsabres to fight. Just use the force on them. You can't assimilate something you can't catch either.

On the path of Elite Force. I have played it. First off, its just Quake in the Star Trek Universe. 2nd, Jedi Knight 2 is better, having force capabilities and more game modes (and a better community). Rogue Squadren isnt a sim game, its an action flight game. Games like Tie Fighter are sim games (thats old though, so some people may not know of it).

The whole blowing up the sun etc thing. Well, it took that many ships. The Death Star can do that on its own. Just target the Sun and you're done. Lets face it, the Star Wars universe has better technology (at the very least as far as military usefulness goes), and more manpower.

::applauds Star Wars fans::
Just to add one more thing to Captal Ship Vs. Catpital Ship combat, most Cap Ships carry at least one squad of fighters, which are highly maneuverable and/or highly deadly (except the Y-wing which just really, really sucks). The fighters support the Capital Ships weaponry, and if your an Impie, there may be 25 squadrons (1 squad = 12 fighters) in one flurry, so your highly outgunned...

Star Wars can also cause supernovas... Centerpoint. (Although Anakin [not Darth Vader Anakin] got rid of that...)

btw, how was "Luke's torpedo executed a 72,000g turn in ANH" calculated???

Though Star Trek may have the smarter "droid" creature. Data>C3PO+R2D2?

::applauds Star Wars fans::

Just to add one more thing to Captal Ship Vs. Catpital Ship combat, most Cap Ships carry at least one squad of fighters, which are highly maneuverable and/or highly deadly (except the Y-wing which just really, really sucks). The fighters support the Capital Ships weaponry, and if your an Impie, there may be 25 squadrons (1 squad = 12 fighters) in one flurry, so your highly outgunned. And, on the ways of destroying whole suns and stuff, Qwi Xux created a ship, the Sun Crusher, that fired Resonance Torpedoes into the heart of a sun, destroying the entire system. Kyp Durron got a hold of it, and demolished the entire Carida system...

...

To end all arguments.

Trek -

1. To make a slow or arduous journey.
2. To journey on foot, especially to hike through mountainous areas.
3. South African. To travel by ox wagon.



Star Wars is all about bruit force. Star Trek is meant to travel the galaxy peacefully and use the mind w/ very little weapon use.

Remember - Brains over Brawns - Star Trek Wins!!

Yeah, brains over brawn eh? What about Yoda, Windu, Obi, Vader. Very Wise & Smart Individuals.

Star Wars isn't really about brute force either. Its more about the spirits power, and willpower. It's about beating adversity no matter what the odds (can we say 3PO's constant odd rambling?). Human Spirit and Willpower = The mind.

So basically, I conclude that both may be equal at mind, but Star Wars is far superior in technology, warfare, tactical thinking, and even all around coolness.

Result: Star Wars knocks Star Trek out.

I gotta say I'm a big fan of both, but Star Wars owns Star Trek by a long shot. The only thing Trek has going for it is Seven of Nine. Now if Star Wars had her then it would be no contest.

But all this is not to say that there wouldn't be an amusing fight. The best of both, now that would be interesting.

Oh and Yoda is really bad arse. He could take on 999,999 borg drones by him self, then he might break a bit of a sweat.

I'm not really into either, but I think Star Wars is a lot kooler.
That song in episode one...I totally don't know what it's called. But it's my ultimate favorite song.

Song title: Duel of the fates?

heh...We hum that in class while lightsaber-style battling with various writing utensils we have...English can get VERY VERY boring sometimes...

enh..It's too late to battle the trek vs. wars at the moment. I'll post soon about how wars kicks start trek in every way later. Now, to go call my lobster.



[laughs to self, yay! I've started it once again!]

And can I mention the architecture of the ships? Compare the borg cube (or whatever it's called) to another capitol ship, lets say Jabba's space cruiser. (or a star destroyer for all of you who don't kno what the space cruiser looks like) One's well a block. The space cruiser is a streamlined ship with solar sails that are retractable and also the ship has it's personal gambling casion inside. And also most of the other ships in Star Wars are much cooler, Slave I, IG-2000, Mist Hunter, A-wing. I don't kno the names of the Star Trek ships but i've only seen one that looks kinda cool...

Not to mention, it has the Force, which is just a neat concept.... :cool:

Yeah! I thought it was a duel of something...

OK, it's time to set a few things straight...

Transphasic Torpedo

Offical:
A weapon for which the Borg had no defense as of 2378. The transphasic torpedo was developed in an alternate timeline in which the U.S.S. Voyager was lost for 23 years rather than seven. In that timeline, Admiral Kathryn Janeway of the year 2404 came back to 2378 to provide her former starship with this technology to repel the Borg while passing through a transwarp hub. One or two transphasic torpedoes fired at a Borg Cube would instantly annihilate it.

My Take:
TPTs could really turn SSDs and DTs in multi-tons of space junk. Borg Cubes were vituraly indestructable to Federation weponry during the late 2360's.

_________________________________

Transwarp Coil

Offical:
Propulsion component that allows Borg ships to travel through transwarp conduits, at much greater speed than warp.

My Take:
I guess this would be a "hyperdrive motivator" is SW.

_________________________________

Cloaking Device

Offical:
Technology of Romulan origin, first described in 2266, that can generate an energy screen to render a target object — usually a spacecraft — relatively invisible to sensors. Due to their immense power drain, cloaking generators have usually prohibited simultaneous use of other major systems such as weaponry, shields or warp drive. Although common to Klingon ships as well since the short-lived alliance with Romulus in the 2260s, Federation vessels have agrred to forego use of cloaks under the Treaty of Algeron, except in the case of the U.S.S. Defiant, which utilizes such a device by special arrangement.

My Take:
We know that "Cloaking Devices" exist in the canon SW movies (ESB). We do know a "CD" can't be small enough to fit on the MF.
_________________________________

Well, I think the final take on this is :

The USS Voyager (SD 54973.4) vs. Executor (ROTJ)
Voyager would destory the Executor like it was a squirel.

impossible to compare warp vs hyperdrive cause, though it appears that hyperdrive lets you get to more places in a shorter time than warp, it also appears that the star wars galaxy is smaller.

impossible to compare weaponry/shielding cause they've never been put up to eachother

and i like trek cause theres more of it. my mind gets bored waiting 10+ years for a star wars movie :p

You could read a book...

Borg Cubes are also much smaller and less defended than star destroyers.

Look at RoTJ.

Both Fleets are firing at each other from "point blank range", and sustain massive amounts of damage before anything is destroyed, with exception being the superlaser cannon on the death star (which would easily destroy anything in Star Trek that it hit).

Those torpedos may be nice, but what are you going to do? Even if you manage to knock some ships out, the fleet will still remain for the most part in tact, and will be shooting at you.

It is my observation that the Star Trek crews don't have nearly as much all out war experience as Star Wars, especially regarding troop engagements. Most of the fighting is more or less squad based. In Star Wars, on the other hand, battles are usually fought on a grand scale, with thosands of ships vs thosands of ships, or hundreds of thosands of troops vs hundreds of thosands of troops.

On the supernova thing, two words: Tox Uthat. A small gem that has the power to make a sun explode. Talk about size efficient. Better than any Superlaser.

Gee, I seem to recall those schemes foiled pretty easily by an old guy (Picard) and a bunch of misplaced rocks...

Hmm..

First, I would like to say that I am a huge fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek. Though I have to mention one thing. To date, Star Wars came out with only five movies, whereas Star Trek came out with ten movies. Star Trek has also has five television series, where as Star Wars does not have any. Books, there are a lot of books to read from both Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars probably came out with more toys and video games than Star Trek. I just do not want to get anymore technical than this.:)

1) So, we have to go to an alternate timeline to find a weapon powerful enough to stand an SSD? SSD's have hundreds of turbolaser batteries, ion cannons, proton torperdoe, and concussion missile launcher, of which I'm sure are capable of intercepting a missile. Turbolaser batteries are large enough to envelop an entire X-wing starfighter, so I'm sure it would be powerful enough to wipe out a missile.

2) A wise man of Sci-fi once said that relying on magic crystals was a last ditch effort, need I say more?

3) Cloaking devices were never displayed in any of the Star Wars movies. In the one of the novel series, Imperial Admiral Zsinj was able to cloak one ship, by placing sattelites around it that effectively cloaked a small area, but this device was destroyed easily by destroying a couple of the sattelites. So, no cloaking technology was ever really discovered that actually worked...

(I'd like to take a moment to remind you that you're arguing the merits of fictitious environments. ...a bit like when 4 year olds say, "I can fly and your superpowers are useless against me, and I'm indestructible, so ha!" and scamper away.)

With that said, my post brings to light some historical fact for the misinformed.

Star Wars Animated Series'

Edit: Yes, I'm bitter *and* old.

While we're discussing the animated series, he're the Star Trek one that crazybear missed:
Star Trek: The Animated Series

its like the bastard child that we all know about, but aren't willing to admit exists... just leave it be ;)

Star Wars had cloaking devices, just not in the movies. They showed up in a few of the games, and in the books.
The Empire had a prototype TIE with cloaking. It looked very similar to the TIE interceptor, but it had 3 "wings". Actually, in that particular game, the Empire cloaked a research facility, a SSD and many SDs.

I guess I stand corrected! I was not aware of the animated series for both Star Wars and Star Trek.:)

For cloaking both the Slave I and the Ig-2000 have cloaking devices on them, and they're not even a capitol class ship.

Actually....no, IG 2000 nor Slave 1 have cloaking devices. In the Star Wars universe they are sorta scarce and its rare technology, they cloaking device mentioned above was in a game, wasn't it? The TIE Patrick mentioned was a TIE Phantom, which was in the Dark Forces II game, I believe, and was the only cloakable TIE craft, they were very expensive to make.

I dont know if it was in dark forces II, but I do know it was in this other game, more like playing a movie, it was cool. All you could actually do was aim your ships guns, or you blaster though.

-edit- Found the game, It was Rebel Assault II